Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chain]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

As amended, to be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Attributability Certificates

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to issue a certificate of attributability to service under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, in the case of the death of Private K. J. Mather, details of which were communicated to him by the hon. Member for Stafford on 3rd May.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 18th May, in the event of proceedings against the Crown in respect of the death of Private K. J. Mather being instituted, my right hon. Friend is prepared to issue, in accordance with Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, a certificate that death will be treated as attributable to service for the purposes of eligibility to make a claim for an award under Article 37 of the Royal Warrant of 24th May, 1949.

Mr. Swingler: Has my hon. Friend carefully considered what was stated at the inquest in connection with this fatal accident? Is he aware that the coroner found that there was some negligence on the part of an individual and on the part of the authorities which resulted in the tragic death of Private Mather? Is it right that this certificate should be issued exempting the Crown from any action?

Mr. Simmons: I think that matter is dealt with in the next question.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions to what extent when he decides whether to issue a certificate of attributability to service under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, in the case of the death of soldier, sailor or airman, he takes into account the question of negligence on the part of an individual or on the part of the authorities.

Mr. Simmons: When deciding whether to issue a certificate of attributability to service under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, in the case of the death of a soldier, sailor or airman, my right hon. Friend does not take into account the question of negligence on the part of an individual or on the part of the authorities. Such a question is not relevant.

Mr. Swingler: Is not my hon. Friend aware that it was part of the intention of the Crown Proceedings Act to put the Crown in the same position as any other employer, and to restore to citizens their common law rights? Where negligence is involved resulting in a fatal accident which cannot be considered as a normal risk of military life, surely it is right that the citizen should have these common law rights?

Mr. Simmons: We are governed by the provisions of the Section of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which I have quoted, and if we are asked to decide on attributability that is all that we have to decide; negligence or otherwise does not enter into the matter.

Mr. Swingler: Can my hon. Friend say that the fatal accident in which Private Mather was involved, for example, was a normal risk of military life, or does he automatically issue certificates of attributability to service in the case of a fatal accident in the Forces?

Mr. Simmons: The question which we have to decide is whether the man was engaged in the pursuit of his ordinary duties. That is the obligation placed upon us by the Crown Proceedings Act.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Artificial Limbs

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Pensions what proportion of the applications outstanding for artificial limbs is from war pensioners resident in this country, civilians resident in this country and visitors to this country, respectively.

Mr. Simmons: Fifteen per cent. of the outstanding orders for artificial limbs are in respect of war pensioners resident in this country: about 85 per cent. relate to National Health Service patients. The proportion relating to visitors to this country is negligible; my Department has details of only six such cases.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that foreigners are at the bottom of the list of outstanding applications?

Mr. Simmons: All these cases are dealt with in accordance with the advice of our medical advisers. As I have said, we have knowledge of only six cases of foreigners who have applied for artificial limbs. One was the case of a French trawler hand who had an accident at sea off the English coast and was taken ashore at Plymouth. He received hospital treatment and was ordered a limb under the National Health scheme. The Ministry of Health were approached on the question and confirmed that a limb could be supplied. I should point out that we only act as agents for the Ministry of Health so far as these limbs are concerned.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Pensions whether all applications for a first artificial limb enjoy priority over applications for a spare one.

Mr. Simmons: Yes, Sir.

Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to implement his promise made by letter, dated 16th August, 1948, to supply a low-powered motor car to a disabled ex-Service man, whose name and particulars have been supplied to him.

Mr. Simmons: As the number of cars available is restricted and the number of applications from more seriously disabled pensioners has been higher than anticipated, I regret that it is impossible to say whether a car will be available for this

pensioner. In the meantime, however, he can be supplied with a motor-propelled tricycle if he so desires.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on 16th August last his chief regional officer gave a definite promise to this man that a low-powered car would be provided? Relying on that promise this man made his arrangements accordingly, including taking a course in driving. Does the Parliamentary Secretary's answer mean that his Department does not intend to honour its undertaking?

Mr. Simmons: The man certainly received a circular from the Ministry saying that he would be supplied with a car in lieu of his motor-propelled tricycle. Actually he has not a motor-propelled tricycle; he has refused one. In announceing to the House the provision of motor cars, the Minister pointed out that a number of cars not exceeding 1,500 would be made available, and that certain classes were established based on the need and the degree of disability. The man in question comes in the fourth class, and to give him preference over those more seriously disabled is something we could not consider at the moment.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: How many applications from ex-Service men are outstanding in these categories?

Mr. Simmons: That is another question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the gravamen of the complaint—that a definite promise was made. Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether it is right that a Government Department should repudiate a promise made to a seriously disabled man?

Mr. Simmons: We deny that a definite promise was made. A circular was sent out saying that he would be supplied with a car; that there were certain categories and that the more seriously disabled people would have priority. We are not saying now that he will not receive a car. All we are saying is that he cannot receive a car at the moment until we see how many applications we get from the people in the higher categories.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. In view of the attempt of the Department to evade a promise definitely made, a copy of which I hold in my hand,


I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Bakeries (Costs)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War why a detailed analysis of costs of producing bread in Army bakeries is no longer available as it was before the war.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The limited staff available for costings work is fully employed on works services.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the study of such costs is an essential part of the check upon efficiency, and is he further aware that when these figures were published before the war they reflected considerable credit on his Department?

Mr. Shinwell: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for undertaking this task, but the staff is over-strained with other activities and cannot undertake additional work at the present moment.

Officers (Transfer Allowance)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) on what grounds payment out of public funds for storage of furniture belonging to officers and their families who are moved from one station to another is not considered justified for Army personnel who are unable to get unfurnished accommodation on being moved from one station to another;
(2) if, in view of the considerable expense incurred by officers in moving themselves and families to new stations where there are no married quarters, he will allow appropriate travelling allowance for a preliminary visit to the new station or £2 in lieu if no visit is made, as is customary in the Civil Service;
(3) if he will conform with the practice in the Civil Service of granting a subsistence allowance to an officer and his family during a move to a new station pending occupation of permanent headquarters.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 13th April to a Question by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low).

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the Secretary of State for War agree that, if these various allowances and helps are given to civil servants, as a matter of principle it is equally right that they should be given to Army personnel, because Army personnel, with the moving they have to do and the obtaining of furnished or unfurnished accommodation, which is not supplied to them, are put to very great hardship?

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, I do not agree, because conditions are dissimilar, and a very full reply was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the main point of the reply to me by the Minister of Defence on that occasion was that the allowances had recently been looked into, and that he was not prepared to look into them again? Now that he has had these Questions asked by my hon. Friend, will not the right hon. Gentleman go to the Minister of Defence and say that it would be in the interests of recruiting for the Army if the allowances were now changed?

Mr. Shinwell: The fact that Questions are asked by hon. Members is no substantial reason why there should be any revision.

Brigadier Head: Is not the Secretary of State aware that it is in these grievances and in hardships such as these that one of the main deterrents to voluntary recruiting lies? He has ignored that constantly, despite our representations upon the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not agree at all. Voluntary recruiting is at a higher level than before.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Bands

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the percentage of their earnings from civilian


engagements which Army bands are required to hand over to the War Office or the Treasury.

Mr. Shinwell: Officially authorised Army bands pay to public funds a percentage of their net annual profits on military band engagements. The amount is 10 per cent. of the first £1,000 in the case of regimental bands and of the first £2,000 in the case of Staff bands, and 15 per cent. of the remainder in both cases.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the War Office makes this deduction when the Air Ministry does not make any similar deduction in respect of Air Force bands, and the Admiralty makes no such deduction in respect of naval or Marine bands?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that that Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. Gentleman take up the question with the Minister of Defence and try to get some co-ordination?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two Questions very quickly; first, why this percentage is deducted, as it never used to be, and secondly, whether there is any direction to commanding officers as to how the part which they receive shall be spent?

Mr. Shinwell: These seem to be two quite different questions.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this 10 per cent. represents an agent's commission for the War Office?

Mr. Shinwell: I think not.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet decided which Territorial Army units of Royal Artillery will be allowed to have bands.

Mr. Shinwell: The location of the ten Royal Artillery bands has not yet been settled.

Mr. Low: Is it not about time that this matter was settled, in view of the

fact that the problem has been in existence for two years? Surely it should be within the power of the War Office to make up their minds in that period, since nothing has changed?

Mr. Shinwell: I agree that these negotiations have gone on long enough, but there were certain conflicting claims in regard to the allocation of bands, and we are not responsible for the conflict.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has refused to make a special grant or to recognise the old established pipers' bands of the London Scottish and London Irish Regiments.

Mr. Shinwell: All infantry battalions of the Territorial Army are authorised to form military bands on separate establishments. An initial grant is made for the purpose and a subsequent annual grant is made for the maintenance of instruments. In addition, all infantry battalions are authorised to form drum, pipe or bugle bands within the unit establishments. These bands are not regarded as substitutes for military bands and no grant-in-aid is given, but they are provided with instruments free on an authorised scale, and Scottish and Irish battalions are also allowed one pipe major and five pipers extra to normal establishment.

Mr. Low: is it not a fact that the special grant previously authorised before the war has been discontinued, and is it not as a result of the discontinuance of that grant that both these regiments are incurring private costs which they should not incur?

Mr. Shinwell: I am advised that it was never the practice to provide pipe bands, but just ordinary military bands, and presumably there is a distinction between them. After all, in view of the fact that the War Office provide instruments, one pipe-major and five pipers, we are very generous.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will look into the question of putting military bands above pipe bands in connection with Highland and Lowland regiments, because military bands are secondary to the pipe bands in Scottish regiments?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Member is trying to convince me of his preference for pipe bands as against ordinary military bands, I would not seek to quarrel with him.

Brigadier Head: Would the Secretary of State say whether there is any instrument grant to enable the right hon. Gentleman to blow his own trumpet?

Mr. Shinwell: None whatever, and I shall not even need a Supplementary Estimate.

Married Officers (Batmen)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War for how many hours per day married officers of the rank of lieut.-colonel, major, captain and lieutenant, respectively, have the use of a batman; and how much he estimates that such assistance is worth to officers who would otherwise have to employ civilian help.

Mr. Shinwell: Batmen are not provided on an hourly basis. They are provided for duties of a personal nature such as the cleaning of the officer's uniform and equipment when the officer is accommodated in single or married quarters. They are not wholly employed in these duties: they have to perform other military duties. A lieut.-colonel in a field force unit is allowed a batman, but other lieut.-colonels and more junior officers have to share batmen. The monetary value of a batman's assistance would therefore vary, but it would be small.

Major Beamish: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so continuously reluctant to give me a straight answer to a straight Question? How can he possibly justify a situation in which married officers who are lucky enough to live in married quarters can have the services of a batman, while married officers unfortunate enough not to live in married quarters, because there are none available, cannot have the services of a batman?

Mr. Shinwell: Because we believe it to be the right thing to do.

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now issue a servant allowance to married officers who, owing to the fact that married quarters are not available, cannot have the assistance of a batman.

Mr. Shinwell: On the introduction of the post-war code of pay and allowances on 1st July, 1946, servant allowance ceased to be paid as it was absorbed into the marriage allowance of married officers and the lodging allowance of single officers, and it is not intended to alter this. On the other hand, I do not propose to alter the practice whereby married officers in quarters may have the services of available batmen.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he finds so very funny about the fact that a lot of officers are living in great hardship as a result of this regulation, and can I not appeal to him to show a little more human sympathy and to look into the matter a little more carefully?

Mr. Shinwell: I did not detect any humour in the Question, and there is certainly none in the answer.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the anomaly by which the married officer for whom no married quarters are available has the worst of both worlds, because he has neither a batman nor a servant allowance?

Mr. Shinwell: The reason is that we have not sufficient batmen to go round, so we use them in the most appropriate fashion.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: That is no reason for denying to the married officer for whom no married quarters are available a servant allowance.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the best way to overcome this difficulty would be to remove batmen altogether?

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. I could not agree with my hon. Friend. If batmen can be made available without difficulty to married officers in quarters we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Low: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not sufficient batmen available, is he supposing that when more married quarters are available the Army will increase by so many more batmen so as to make sufficient men available?

Mr. Shinwell: I would regard that as a hypothetical question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In order to satisfy the Opposition completely, will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House that the needs of the Service will never be allowed to interfere with the convenience of officers?

Mr. Shinwell: I never hope to satisfy the Opposition completely.

Major Beamish: In view of the frivolous way in which the right hon. Gentleman has answered these questions and the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Land Acquisition, Lanark

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many military officers attended officially the recent public inquiry into the proposed acquirement of 4,823 acres of land near Lanark.

Mr. Shinwell: Eight.

Mr. Hughes: Were they accompanied by their batmen, and could the Minister explain why none of these eight officers gave evidence or were questioned by counsel for the local authority, and will he say whether there was an instruction to that effect?

Mr. Shinwell: Various interests in the Scottish Command had to be represented and it was thought desirable that these officers should be present.

Married Quarters, Glen Parva

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason the wives and families of men of the 1st Battalion, The Royal Leicestershire Regiment, who have been sent to Hong Kong, have received notice to vacate their married quarters at Glen Parva Barracks; why the notice was not issued until after the men had left; and if he is aware of the effect of such treatment on recruitment for the Regular Army.

Mr. Shinwell: Before a soldier is allotted a married quarter he has to sign a certificate included in which is a statement that he understands that he will be required to move his family when he is posted from the station and alternative accommodation is offered. The married quarters occupied by the wives and families of men of the 1st Battalion

The Leicestershire Regiment at Glen Parva Barracks are required for occupation by soldiers serving at the station who are awaiting married quarters so that they can be united with their families. I am looking into the matter to see whether there are any exceptional features in this case.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that alternative accommodation will be provided for these people, and will he explain how the Government reconcile their attitude towards the men and families in Government quarters with what is supposed to be their policy towards tied cottages?

Mr. Shinwell: In every case alternative accommodation is offered.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the assurance was given to the wives of these men that they would not be disturbed until their husbands came back, because that has been stated, and will he see that the wives have an opportunity of making contact with their husbands before they make any further move?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am aware, no such assurance was given, certainly not by myself or anybody at the War Office. I can say that we are viewing this matter very sympathetically.

Mr. Attewell: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm the opinion held by some of the wives at Glen Parva Barracks that they had been promised that they would be allowed to stay in the barracks until they travelled to their husbands in Hong Kong, and is it the policy of his Department to send wives to Hong Kong in the present situation?

Mr. Shinwell: No promise could have been given in view of the condition attached to the occupancy of married quarters, to which I have referred in my original answer. On the question of sending wives and families to Hong Kong, that is a matter which requires to be very carefully considered.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Will my right hon. Friend say whether this conditional regulation dates from a time when the housing shortage did not exist and whether, under present circumstances, it ought not to be reconsidered; also, is


the alternative accommodation offered to these women in a transit camp?

Mr. Shinwell: The practice to which I have referred is the normal practice which has been in operation for many years. As regards the alternative accommodation, we have offered hostel accommodation, most of which is satisfactory, but I am looking into the matter to assure myself that the accommodation is such as can be reasonably offered to these wives and families.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that Scottish soldiers are being sent to Hong Kong and in view of the housing difficulties in Scotland, will the Minister give special consideration to the matter before agreeing to any evictions in Scotland?

Mr. Shinwell: That seems to be quite a different question.

Aqaba (Accommodation)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated expenditure on barracks at Aqaba; and how long British forces are to remain in occupation there.

Mr. Shinwell: No expenditure has been incurred on barracks in Aqaba. Some £20,000, however, has been spent in providing temporary accommodation to minimum essential standards. A further sum may have to be spent on additional works services for the hot weather. It is not possible to say how long it will be necessary to retain our Forces there.

Mr. Hughes: Is not £20,000 a large sum to be spent on temporary quarters, and cannot the Minister give an assurance that we are not to be permanently in occupation?

Mr. Shinwell: Within reasonable limits, no sum is too large to be spent in providing decent accommodation for our troops. In regard to the latter part of the Question, I cannot say at present how long it will be necessary to retain our Forces there.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the implication in the last supplementary question that we are occupying Aqaba and will he make it clear that we are there in honour of our obligations to Transjordan?

Mr. Shinwell: We are everywhere in honour of our obligations.

Burlish Camp

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give up possession of that part of Burlish Camp, Stourport-on-Severn, which is at present occupied by squatters, in order that the urban district council may put the water supply and sanitary arrangements in order, and use some of the huts for temporary housing accommodation.

Mr. Shinwell: Negotiations are in progress with the Ministry of Health with a view to their accepting transfer of that part of Burlish Camp which is at present occupied by squatters.

Major Conant: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these negotiations are to continue, in view of the fact that they have been going on for months?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say. We are trying to speed them up as rapidly as we can.

No. 1 Dress

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the pattern and issue of the new serge walking-out dress; and whether it is intended to confine this uniform to Regular troops.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major T. Beamish) on 22nd March last. It is hoped eventually to extend the supply of No. 1 dress to the Territorial Army.

Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office have received any representations regarding the men's preference for rolled collars rather than stick-up collars?

Mr. Shinwell: I have not heard of any, but the matter of the appropriate design of future dress is constantly under consideration.

Casualties, Malaya

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and men have been killed or wounded in


action in Malaya since operations were commenced against the Communists; and what is the minimum period of training at home, excluding training on board ship, and training in jungle conditions, respectively, that any such officers and men had received before being killed or wounded.

Mr. Shinwell: Between 1st May, 1948, and 31st March, 1949, nine British Army officers and 27 other ranks have been killed, or died of wounds, and 10 British Army officers and 44 other ranks have been wounded in Malaya. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available and to obtain it would entail a disproportionate amount of work.

Major Beamish: That reply is really not good enough, in view of the very great public interest in this matter. How can it entail a disproportionate amount of work when the details must be actually available in the War Office?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid the information is not readily available, but we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that men are not sent out without being adequately trained, and that, when they arrive at their destinations, they undergo an additional form of training.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many months' training had been given to one man whose name he notified to me in a letter the other day, and who was killed in Malaya after only five months' service?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think that supplementary question arises from the Question.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why 150 men were taken off a draft for the Far East the other day by him, and whether it had anything to do with their training?

Mr. Shinwell: Because I decided it was the proper thing to do.

Major Beamish: Is it not clear from that reply, when the right hon. Gentleman says that steps are now being taken to ensure adequate training before sending men away, that in the past, since action started in Malaya, officers and men have been in action with inadequate training?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not agree, and in any event it is a matter that rests very

largely in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief on the spot, upon whom we rely.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an officer who left his O.C.T.U. unit at the end of March is now on embarkation leave?

Mr. Shinwell: It does not follow from that that he has not had adequate training.

Major Beamish: I beg to give notice that, as this is a matter of very wide public interest, and as the Secretary of State refuses to answer my questions, I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Compassionate Releases

Mr. Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many applications for release from the Army on compassionate grounds were dealt with in his Department in 1947, 1948, and up to the most recent convenient date in 1949; and how many such releases were granted.

Mr. Shinwell: The approximate numbers of applications received in 1947, 1948 and up to 26th May this year were 12,800, 5,500 and 1,550 respectively. Of these, approximately 4,000, 1,300 and 400 were granted.

Mr. Symonds: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that each of these applications is dealt with strictly on its merits, that there is no question of granting only a certain limited proportion or percentage of the applications, and that, in fact there is no ceiling to the number that can be granted?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I am concerned—and I have to decide what should be done in these matters—every case is dealt with on its merits.

FIELD-MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to provide Field-Marshal von Manstein with competent British counsel for his forthcoming trial; and when does he expect the trial will commence.

Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the first part of the Question is none so far as I am concerned. This officer has engaged very competent German counsel with


previous experience of war crimes trials, and as regards assistance of British counsel or currency to pay them, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 1st February last to a similar Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and to the further reply given to the same hon. and learned Member on 7th February by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
As regards the last part of the Question, the full charges with supporting evidence were served on Field-Marshal von Manstein on 24th May, and his counsel must be allowed a reasonable time to prepare their defence. Until I know how long they will require, I cannot say exactly when the trial is likely to begin.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend's answer to the first part of the Question mean that currency will become available, if it is required, for British counsel; secondly, can he assure the House that whatever time, within reason, is asked for by the defending counsel will be allowed before the trial takes place?

Mr. Shinwell: On the subject of currency, I am afraid that I cannot change the form of my reply, but on the second part of the supplementary question I think I can meet my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the court be reminded that this officer has already suffered four years imprisonment in regard to this crime?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but we must bear in mind that if the allegations can be sustained—I repeat, if they can be sustained—many other people suffered.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the witnesses upon whose depositions these charges are framed have already been hanged?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that I could not answer that question offhand.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (PAY AND RATIONS)

Brigadier Peto: asked the Secretary of State for War whether marriage allowance is included in the pay and allowances

of Territorial Army personnel who attend weekend camps, where periods of continuous training exceed eight hours; and whether he is aware that this allowance has not been paid in respect of the Easter camp from 14th to 18th April to non-commissioned officers and men of the Westminster Dragoons.

Mr. Shinwell: Before September, 1948, pay and marriage allowance were issuable for training periods exceeding 48 hours' duration, and for periods of 48 hours or less no pay or marriage allowance was issued but an allowance to cover incidental expenses was payable with a maximum of 4s. 6d. a day in the case of a private. Out of this he had to pay for his food.
Under the new arrangements which I explained in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 3rd May, men are eligible for pay and free rations for training periods in excess of eight hours. Marriage allowance is not issuable, the reason being that the man's civil pay covers family expenses.

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the training pamphlet, "Spare Time for Britain in the Territorial Army," which presumably was issued by his Department, there is under the heading of "Pay and Allowances" the sentence, "These will be at Regular Army rates while attending annual camp and for periods of continuous training which exceed eight hours"; that it has been on that assumption, to a large extent, that men have joined, and that he is now ruling that that is not the case?

Mr. Shinwell: But in fact the men are much better off under the new arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

New Town, Cwmbran

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what plans he has for a new town near Cwmbran, Monmouthshire.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): Following my consultation with the local authorities concerned, I am proceeding with the pre-


paration of the draft designation order for a site for a new town in the neighbourhood of Cwmbran, and I hope shortly to publish the draft Order.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: While gratified at the attention paid to my birthplace, may I ask can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be a sufficient green belt between this new town and the existing towns of Newport and Pontypool?

Mr. Silkin: I can give an assurance that we have given the fullest consideration to that particular point, and that we will do our very best.

Development Value (Claims)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will further extend the time in which to submit claims for loss of development value and issue simple claim forms for the purpose.

Mr. Silkin: The time limit for submitting claims has already been extended by three months. I regret that any further extension is impracticable. The form of claim is as simple as is possible, having regard to its subject matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this form, with its 60 or 70 entries that have to be completed, is by no means an easy one for ordinary people to fill up, even with professional assistance, which is not always available; and in those circumstances can he give an assurance that all forms submitted by 30th June will be accepted as valid claims, even though there may be some omissions in regard to particular figures?

Mr. Silkin: Provision has been made, and I believe it has been announced by the Chairman of the Central Land Board, that it is not necessary to insert figures. I am quite satisfied that the Central Land Board will act reasonably concerning the way in which the claim forms are submitted.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms specialising in completing these claims are so inundated with work that they cannot take on any new applications, and will he therefore consider once again extending the time by which these claims can be made?

Mr. Silkin: They really have had ample time. The difficulty is that there is a statutory obligation to make payment within five years, and unless the claims are submitted by 30th June it will be quite impossible to discharge that obligation.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that all resources of the local authorities and such organisations as the Law Society are being mobilised in order to see that these claims are made in time?

Mr. Silkin: It is open to any claimant to use any sources available, including the Law Society, and I am sure that local authorities are always ready to help.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say whether he is considering a proposal which has been put to him that a simple notification of claim by 30th June would be sufficient, and that the full claim itself could be sent in later?

Mr. Silkin: There must be a minimum of information to enable the valuers to get to work and assess the claim. Provided that minimum of information is supplied, there would be no difficulty placed in the way, but a simple notification would be really quite inadequate.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not most important that no sense of injustice should be left in the mind of any property owner, small or large; and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the very narrow interpretation will meet that requirement?

Mr. Silkin: I am satisfied that there need be no sense of injustice and that no unnecessary difficulties will be put in the way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Time?"] They have had a long time.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say, arising out of the question of the very small number of claims that has yet been put in, what he proposes to do with the millions of claims that will not be put in because the individuals concerned do not realise that they should be put in? Whose responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of his Department?

Mr. Silkin: Claims are coming in much more rapidly now than previously, and ample publicity has been given to the matter. I cannot see what more it is possible to do by way of publicity.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: If at last claims are now coming in more rapidly, is that not an argument for some small extension of the time?

Mr. Silkin: No, Sir.

Gun Sites, Friern Barnet

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the Service Land Requirements Committee have yet considered the general question of gun sites; and whether he is prepared to receive representations from the Friern Barnet Urban District Council regarding the proposed site known as Sweets' Nurseries, Friern Barnet, which is very badly needed by the local authority for housing purposes.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I put down this Question to the Secretary of State for War, as I was unaware that the Minister of Town and Country Planning was responsible for selecting gun sites? All the previous correspondence has been with the War Office, but I hope that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be able to answer the Question.

Mr. Silkin: A general procedure has been agreed by which Departments and authorities concerned are consulted on the specific location of anti-aircraft gun sites. As regards the second part of the Question, the District Council agreed in January, 1948, to the use for the purpose of the site referred to; I have had no subsequent communication from them, and I am not clear on what ground I could now be asked to receive representations.

Captain Crowder: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Friern Barnet Urban District Council has written to me saying that he is very short of land on which to build houses and is very anxious to have this site for housing, and asking me if I can arrange with the Minister to receive a deputation? That is why the Question was put down.

Mr. Silkin: I quite understand, but it is a little difficult to do business with a local authority which in January, 1948, agrees to a proposal, and then writes to its Member of Parliament some time later asking him to reopen the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Workmen's Compensation Payments

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is yet in a position to make a statement about bringing persons who are entitled to payments under the original Workmen's Compensation Acts within the scope of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on this matter.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he wrote to me in January saying that he hoped to make a statement in the middle of 1949, and can he now indicate when he is likely to make that statement?

Mr. Griffiths: I indicated to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and indeed to the House, some time ago that it was very desirable to have some experience of the working of the new scheme before we made up our minds about this problem. We have now had about 10 months' experience and the whole position is being re-examined. I would not like to say when we can come to a decision.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the liability for paying compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act rests upon the employers or the insurance companies, and if he is going to make any arrangement for transferring this liability will he make it on a commercial and financial basis rather than as a gift to the insurance companies?

Mr. Griffiths: Of course, it will have to be on what my hon. Friend calls a "commercial basis." We shall take over the liability for which the employers are responsible, and shall expect them to meet that liability if it is practicable for them to do so.

Mr. Hale: In considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend have regard, in particular, to the case of industrial diseases, and is he aware that there is now very real doubt whether a man who suffers a recurrence of a certifiable industrial disease after 5th July, 1948, can successfully claim under either scheme?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that if and when the time comes for these liabilities to be taken over, no recipient of workmen's compensation will be put in a worse position under the new scheme than he was under the old Act?

Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the problems to which we have to give attention. It will be within my hon. Friend's knowledge that men injured or disabled prior to 5th July are now entitled—and, indeed, many hundreds are receiving it—to supplementary benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.

Industrial Injuries (Benefit)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the effect of the supplementary scheme applicable to miners under the Industrial Injuries Act whereby disparity in benefit arises between injured workmen who draw injury benefit for the full 156 days from the date of accident, and those whose period of incapacity is much shorter in the first place but have a further period of incapacity after the expiration of 156 days from date of accident; and whether he proposes to adjust this anomaly.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The conditions governing the payment of benefit under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme are a matter in the first place for both sides of the industry. I have received no representations from them on the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Oliver: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that reply that there are no means whereby this anomaly can be remedied other than by negotiation between the two parties?

Mr. Griffiths: The supplementary scheme is settled in the first instance by the two parties. It is then submitted to me, and I bring it to Parliament. I have no power to initiate changes in the scheme unless I receive recommendations from them.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will make a statement as to the benefit position

prescribed by his regulations for injured workmen under the Industrial Injuries Act whose second period of resulting incapacity occurs after a period of 156 days from the date of the accident and who have not drawn the full period of 156 days injury benefit.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Industrial Injuries Act provides that injury benefit is only payable for a maximum period of 156 days from the date of the accident. After the 156 days, the claimant's position is governed by the provisions of the Act relating to disablement benefit. I have no power to modify this position by regulations.

Mr. Oliver: Am I to understand that if an injured workman does not draw his 156th days pay within the period of 156 days from the date of the accident, he is not entitled to injury benefit, and must take some other benefit if subsequent incapacity occurs?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, the period of 156 days dates from the actual date of the accident itself. That is provided for in the Act.

Supplementary Assistance

Mr. John Paton: asked the Minister of National Insurance to state the considerations taken into account by the National Assistance Board in fixing the present rates of supplementary assistance.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 16th June last when submitting these regulations for the approval of the House. As my hon. Friend will remember, the rates were welcomed as a considerable improvement on the rates previously in force.

Mr. Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the index, which many people feel is not a true measure of the actual cost of living?

Mr. Griffiths: Of course, the Board are not strictly tied down to the index, though the index is one of the important factors they have to take into account.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that while the allowances may be better than they used to be, they are still far


from what they ought to be in view of the value of the pound and prices at the present time?

Personal Cases

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of National Insurance the reasons why three disabled ex-Service men, who had been employed by the British Legion Car Attendants Company, Limited, at Lancaster, on 10th May, were refused unemployed benefit by his local offices; and whether any further action has been taken.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Unemployment benefit could not be paid to these men because, on the facts before him, the insurance officer decided that they had left their employment voluntarily without just cause. This decision was reversed on appeal to the local tribunal and payment of arrears of benefit due has now been made.

Commander Pursey: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether these three disabled ex-Service men were refused a break for a meal during an eight-hour shift, refused consultation with the Preston manager 20 miles away and discharged with less than the week's notice stipulated under the terms of their agreement?

Mr. Griffiths: When persons make claims for unemployment benefit they have to state why they have left their previous employment. This form is sent to the employers and the employers then make a statement. These facts are before the insurance officer; he decides. In this case all the relevant facts were put before the tribunal, and the tribunal made a decision in favour of the men.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Benefit (Personal Case)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the dismissal from work of Mr. Cooper on the grounds that his workmates objected to the speed and efficiency of his work; and what provisions exist to provide unemployment benefit or other means of compensation to men who are deprived of their employment on these grounds.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Mr. Cooper was not dismissed from the employment which I understand the hon. Member has in mind, but left it of his own accord. I understand that he has made a claim for unemployment benefit, but no decision on this has yet been reached by the statutory authorities.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Whether he was dismissed or left on his own accord, was the reason why he left that his workmates complained that he worked too hard and too fast?

Mr. Isaacs: That is the story, but there is not the slightest bit of evidence to support it.

Disabled Persons, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of registered disabled unemployed persons in Cardiff at the latest convenient date; and what steps he has taken to reduce this number.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of unemployed disabled persons in the Cardiff area at 18th April, 1949, was 534. This represents a decrease of 65 over the last three months. An industrial rehabilitation unit has been established at Cardiff, and a Remploy factory for severely disabled persons is in operation at Treforest. Further and continuous efforts are being made by my local officers to secure employment for those in need of suitable work.

Mr. Thomas: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to tell me the number which the industrial rehabilitation centre caters for?

Mr. Isaacs: The industrial rehabilitation centre caters for 100. There are 83 persons at the centre now, so we could accept another 17. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be interested to hear that the number now travelling from Cardiff to Treforest has increased from 20 to 40.

Bury

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered as unemployed in the County Borough of Bury on 1st May, 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: There were 104 at 9th May, 1949.

NATIONAL SERVICE (VETERINARY STUDENTS)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour for what purpose a board of his Department is to examine on 15th June students of the Royal Veterinary College who have been five years at this college and are due to sit for their finals a week later.

Mr. Isaacs: No question of examination arises. These students are being interviewed in order to explain to those who have not yet fulfilled their National Service obligations, the openings that are available for them in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps and the types of veterinary work in civil life for which they might be granted deferment.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the extreme, shortage of veterinary surgeons, will the Minister take steps to see that these men are directed into the profession for which they have been trained rather than into something for which they have not been trained?

Mr. Isaacs: That is exactly the purpose of the interview with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teachers (Responsibility Payments)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can make a statement on the findings of the National Joint Council in regard to the application for an increase in responsibility payments made by the supervisors and organisers of technical subjects.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The National Joint Council have informed me that they were unable to reach agreement on the subject of this application.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman then able to take no action under the Education Act, 1946, which gives him power to vary these scales and to introduce new salary scales?

Mr. Woodburn: Of course, the teachers will be able to raise this matter again in due course and an opportunity for revision of the regulations will, perhaps, be given later in the year.

School Children (Spectacles)

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is

aware that school children are being retarded educationally by reason of long delay in provision of and replacement of spectacles; and whether he will take action to ensure priority of supply in such cases.

Mr. Woodburn: I very much regret these delays. Arrangements have now been made by the opticians and their manufacturers to give priority in very urgent cases, and especially to school children whose vision would suffer seriously without glasses.

Mr. Hector Hughes: While I realise the difficulty of fixing priorities in this matter, could my right hon. Friend say what is the principle on which priority is decided—youth, or age, or order of application, or what?

Mr. Woodburn: The variety of cases which require priority is so great that, of course, it would be impossible to have any uniform scheme.

Sir T. Moore: Will our foreign visitors be incommoded by these priorities being granted to those who pay for this scheme?

Mr. Woodburn: I am afraid I have never encountered these mythical visitors who are able to wait long enough to get glasses in this country.

Peat Deposits, Altnabreac

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to conduct the large-scale experimental work for the production of electric power from peat at Altnabreac where the finest quality peat is in abundance.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware of the extensive peat deposits at Altnabreac. Further surveys of Scottish peat bogs, including the collection of meteorological data and the analysis of samples with a view to their suitability for burning in gas turbines, will be necessary, however, before a decision can be reached on the siting of large-scale experiments.

Sir D. Robertson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where it is in Scotland that he intends to spend the £50,000 to which he referred in Edinburgh last week, if it is not in Altnabreac?

Mr. Woodburn: Locating the peat, of course, is only the first step in the scientific investigation as to where experimental work is to be started. We have to consider not only the peat but the gas


turbine engines which are to be used in this conection.

Sir D. Robertson: My question has nothing whatever to do with the engines. It has to do with an area which is greatly distressed by unemployment and where the right hon. Gentleman has refused to create a Development Area. May I request him seriously to consider the claims of Altnabreac?

Hospitals (Administrative Economies)

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it clear to the regional boards and the management committees that in making economies in administration they are not to close down beds or prevent, where possible, the opening of new beds, or otherwise reduce the facilities for patients.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tobacco (Mobile Shops)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give special consideration, in the granting of excise licences for the sale of tobacco, to those mobile shops used only on prepared sites on which but for building restrictions there would now be a permanent shop.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir. I am advised that licences can be granted only in respect of "premises," and that mobile shops are not premises.

Mr. Beswick: While I appreciate some of the difficulties in this matter, does not my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that there are cases in new estates or in blitzed areas where the absence of permanent premises creates considerable inconvenience? Could he not have a special look at this aspect of the matter?

Sir S. Cripps: It has been looked at. The matter is very complicated. It would need a lot of legislation, and I do not think it would give a very satisfactory result.

Balance of Payments

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the changed world price levels, both of raw materials and manufactured goods, he is still satisfied that the estimate given

by His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom balance of payments at the end of this year is correct.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware that any such estimate has been given.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the fall in world prices, particularly of basic metals, which is not reflected by any similar fall in this country does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it will be very difficult for many exporters to reach their targets?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a completely different question from that as to whether an estimate is to be realised.

Coal Exports

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of foreign currency accruing to this country in the last financial year through the sale of coal overseas.

Sir S. Cripps: Sales of coal to countries outside the scheduled territories in the last financial year amounted to about £37 million.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this most welcome addition to our resources has been achieved by selling coal at the maximum price possible, is it to be assumed from the Chancellor's answer that he agrees with that, or does he want the National Coal Board to do the same as private enterprise—cut down profits?

Sir S. Cripps: There is nothing to be assumed from my answer except that the figure was £37 million.

Colonel Haughton: Can the Chancellor state the tonnage to which that sum relates?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I could not do that without notice.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how much of that £37 million was hard currency?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I could not.

Mr. Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the amount received for that tonnage sold was frightfully high or not?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I think it was a very fair price in the export market.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the price received was the highest possible, does not that mean that the Chancellor thinks it is the duty of exporters to get whatever they can for their exports?

Sir S. Cripps: I have always stated that it was advantageous to earn as much foreign currency as we could.

Tourists (Currency)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to allow a drain on the gold reserves of this country, through the provision of currency for tourists.

Sir S. Cripps: In order to arrive at a satisfactory general agreement with certain countries.

Exporting Industries (Profits)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the average profit margins of the 10 largest exporting industries.

Sir S. Cripps: The information asked for is unfortunately not available.

Mr. Keeling: If the Chancellor cannot give figures will he consider issuing an explanation of his allegation of "frightfully high and enormous profits"—an allegation which the best-known weekly economic paper described as "Not the words of an economist but those of a rabble-rouser"?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I am not concerned with what either the Press or the Leader of the Opposition says. The information is not available and I could not give any explanation because the facts are not available.

Company Reserves

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £1,215,000,000 profits which, as stated by him, had been put to reserve by companies, was a gross estimate prior to provision for taxation, or whether it represented the residue after allowance for taxation.

Lord John Hope: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £1,215,000,000 stated by him as having been put to extra reserve by companies last year represented provision for taxation.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to Table 6 of the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure (Cmd. 7649).

Mr. Smith: If the Chancellor had wanted to give a really factual picture

would he not have taken the lesser figure rather than the larger?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, because the whole of the contents of the larger figure was, in fact, achieved by the price of the articles sold.

Lord John Hope: Is it not clear after all this that the Chancellor's general insinuation in his Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill, that profits were largely responsible for high prices, was, to say the least of it, undesirable and dishonest?

Sir S. Cripps: The noble Lord must learn to ask courteous questions if he wishes for replies.

Mr. Stanley: Of course, I shall try to match my question to the courtesy of the replies we receive. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the sum of £500 million net which was actually put to reserve to be excessive in view of the demands that are to be made on industry for re-equipment?

Sir S. Cripps: Of course, one must divide it up into different industries. In some cases it may have been excessive and in others not. It is not the same in every industry. It varies. Some make much bigger profits than others. What I stated was that this large volume of profits could enable some industries in some articles to reduce the export price.

Mr. Henry Strauss: From the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) are we to understand that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said "frightfully high" what he meant was "very fair"?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid not, because I consider that they are in some cases frightfully high.

Mr. Gallacher: Why not take the lot from them?

Mr. Albu: Do not the figures of profits show that they are approximately 16 per cent. of the turnover value of a large percentage of public companies?

Lord John Hope: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised my method of asking a question of him through you, Mr. Speaker, and my use of the two adjectives "undesirable" and "dishonest," may I now ask him if he is aware that they were applied by him


to an hon. Member on this side of the House in the Debate.

Sir S. Cripps: They may have been deserved. I do not remember the occasion.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (DISPUTES)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he has any further statement to make about the strike in the North Eastern Region of the British Railways, and if he has any information about the "go-slow" movement in Manchester and Nine Elms.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I have been informed by the Railway Executive that they held a meeting this morning with the representatives of the Executives of the two Unions concerned in the Sunday strikes in the North Eastern Region. I understand that the Executives of the Unions are now considering the views expressed to them by the Railway Executive.
As regards the second part of the Question, I am informed that both at the London Road Goods Station, Manchester, and at the Nine Elms Goods Depot, London, certain of the workers have decided to adopt a "go-slow" policy in order to register dissatisfaction at the alleged delay in dealing with their claim for increased pay. As the House may be aware, I saw the negotiating Committee of the N.U.R. on Thursday last, at their request, as they desired to place before me information about the position that had been reached in their negotiations with the Railway Executive on the wage claim. On Friday morning I was able to transmit that information to the Railway Executive, and I can inform the House that the Railway Executive yesterday addressed to the Unions signatory to their agreement, including the N.U.R., a written notification that they were prepared to continue negotiations.
I am sure the House will appreciate the extreme undesirability of any comment that might prejudice the position or embarrass the parties, but I feel I should make it clear that I cannot countenance the action that has been decided on by the workers in Nine Elms and Manchester. Such action can only impede; it cannot assist negotiations. Public opinion will be alienated and the

authority of the Union to speak for its members will be brought into question.

Mr. Eden: I am sure nobody wants to embarrass the situation, but I am equally sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is becoming an extremely serious one, especially in respect of Nine Elms and the station in Manchester. Can he explain how it is that if this communication was sent yesterday, as he told us it was, by the Railway Executive to the N.U.R. there should be on the following day a "go-slow" movement which, according to our information, is causing a hold-up in a wide variety of exports and deliveries not to be made on time?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The communication was sent yesterday night, and I said it was received this morning. We know it was received this morning. Therefore, up to that point the Union was not able to inform its members before their decision last night to take this action. I most sincerely hope that some notice will be taken of the fact that now the Union has got into negotiation, and that there is no need to make use of any kind of unofficial action to speed up negotiations which have, in fact, started.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that these negotiations in connection with wages have been going on for a long, long time? Is it possible to give one solitary case of workers' demands being met without such long-drawn-out negotiations?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and if time permitted I could recite a long, long list of cases in which complaints of infringements of union practice and principles have been settled. Similarly, we can show that where men have been encouraged to take unofficial action it has delayed settlement, and not encouraged it at all.

Mr. W. Fletcher: In view of the fact that the Minister has told us that this decision was taken yesterday, and that a communication was to be made, could not means have been found so that the men could have been told before this morning, which probably would have prevented the action which has been taken?

Mr. Isaacs: The decision of the Executive was taken after the communication. We have been using our influence to speed things up. I think they have moved very quickly since we met last week. As to


why the Executive could not pass it over late last night instead of this morning, that it a matter of detail which I cannot answer.

Mr. Eden: It is not quite that. This matter is having a considerable effect already. Why was it that the Railway Executive could not communicate with the Union until last night?

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that after my taking the steps to keep the parties together, there were some informal talks to clear a small difficulty out of the way before the negotiations were got going. There is the railway machinery for negotiation, which all parties want to retain uninjured. Therefore, we had to be careful that no steps were taken that would damage the operation of that machinery. I admit that it is a little slow, but we will do what we can to speed it up.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: If, as appears probable, there is likely to be a serious interruption of communications during the Whitsun holidays, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the public are warned in time, to minimise inconvenience?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only hope that such a contingency will not arise, but it is not my business to warn the public. I hope they will taken notice of the Questions asked in this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 115.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Daggar, G.
Haworth, J.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daines, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hicks, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hobson, C. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Deer, G.
Horabin, T. L.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)


Ayles, W. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hubbard, T.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Balfour, A.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)


Barstow, P. G.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Barton, C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham N)


Benson, G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.


Beswick, F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Binns, J.
Fairhurst, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Jenkins, R. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bowen, R.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gallacher, W.
Kirby, B. V.


Bramall, E. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lang, G.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibbins, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gilzean, A.
Leslie, J. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Logan, D. G.


Burden, T. W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Longden, F.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lyne, A. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Grey, C. F.
McAdam, W.


Carmichael, James
Grierson, E.
McAlister, G.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.


Champion, A. J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McGhee, H. G.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Mack, J. D.


Cluse, W. S.
Guy, W. H.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
McKinlay, A. S.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Cook, T. F.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Cooper, G.
Hardman, D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.




Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Reeves J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Rhodes, H.
Timmons, J.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Titterington, M. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Tolley, L.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Usborne, Henry


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Monslow, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Viant, S. P.


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wadsworth, G.


Morley, R.
Royle, C.
Walkden, E.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Scollan, T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Segal, Dr. S.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N.


Moyle, A.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Nally, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Naylor, T. E.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Weitzman, D.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Skeffington, A. M.
West, D. G.


Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Skinnard, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt Hon. John (Edin'gh E)


Noel-Baker, Rt Hon P. J. (Derby)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Oliver, G. H.
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Orbach, M.
Solley, L. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Parker, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Steele, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Pearson, A.
Stokes R. R.
Willis, E.


Popplewell, E.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Swingler, S.
Woods, G. S.


Price, M. Philips
Sylvester, G. O.
Wyatt, W.


Proctor, W. T.
Symonds, A. L.
Yates, V. F.


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)



Randall, H. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ranger, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Chatlen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt, John E.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Davidson, Viscountess
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley C. N.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nicholson, G.



Glyn, Sir R.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 3, page 3, line 4 and page 3, line 9; Clause 4, page 4, line 13, page 4, line 14 and page 4, line 17; Clause 17, page 14, line 28 and page 14, line 32; Clause 18, page 15, line 37, page 15, line 39 and page 15, line 42; Clause 32, page 26, line 4; Clause 36, page 30, line 11, page 30, line 22 and page 30, line 37; Clause 40, page 34, line 45; Clause 47, page 42, line 1; Clause 56, page 45, line 29; Clause 61, page 47, line 23 and page 47, line 34; and the new Clause (Counting of certain war service for superannuation purposes) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Glenvil Hall.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(WIDOWS' PENSIONS.)

3.49 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "section," to end of line 7, and to insert:
and
(ii) the Treasury are satisfied at a subsequent date that the marriage or cohabitation has come to an end or that there are compassionate grounds for the payment of pension notwithstanding the marriage.
As the Bill stands, pensions to widows who cohabit outside the marriage state or marry again are either stopped or not issued. Discretion, however, is given to the Treasury to pay or re-issue such a pension should a subsequent marriage come to an end. This Amendment and the next Amendment, in line 9, allow the Treasury discretion to give or to re-issue a pension, both where cohabitation ceases and where, although a subsequent marriage may subsist, the woman has been, for example, left destitute. I should perhaps say that the discretion to re-issue or pay a pension when after a subsequent marriage the husband is still living will be used very sparingly. What we cannot contemplate is the issuing of

a pension simply because the subsequent husband happens to be in poor circumstances.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I only rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting down this Amendment to deal with a matter upon which there was a fairly long discussion in Standing Committee. If a widow cohabited for a very short time and her pension was cut off for that reason, under the Bill as it stood there was not even discretion on the part of the Treasury to restore the pension. That seemed to hon. Members on all sides a remarkably harsh provision; we thought that the pension should not be cut off on grounds of that kind, certainly not permanently. By this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has certainly gone a very long way to meet the point previously made, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: There is one point which may appear small, but which is nevertheless important. Could the Financial Secretary tell me exactly what the word "cohabit" means? It is important to know the meaning from two points of view. As I understand it, the word is used in this Bill as a genteel word for adultery or fornication. Why the Parliamentary draftsmen have used this word, I do not know, although I do not like to attack members of this esoteric and macabre profession. The word does not appear in any dictionary as meaning what is apparently intended here, except as an alternative. The plain meaning of the word "cohabit" is to live or to dwell under the same roof. The Philistines cohabited with the Ark of God; and so far as I am aware a man may cohabit with his mother-in-law without the slightest loss of any moral status, although it may be a reflection upon his discretion.
This is an important matter, because we are here discussing a subject upon which many of us feel very deeply. As I understand it, this Amendment stops short at two points, and there ought to be provision so that when cohabitation ceases the same effect should be had as when marriage ceases, because we can well understand that, even if for the moment I accept that the word means adultery, the meaning attributed to the word is clear in intention. It is quite clear that there may be a woman who lives with a man who is married to somebody else and


obviously cannot marry her, and if that association ceases for any reason, I see no reason why she should not be treated in the same way as a woman who has remarried.
There is another reason why we should not use these words which do not mean what is intended. The word is not in Wharton's Law Lexicon; it is described in the dictionary of legal words, where there is a quite different definition. Even the Divorce Court has become genteel in these days, and as the word is used there, one gets a definition by which "cohabit" need not mean living under the same roof as man and wife; it may mean casual adultery in certain cases. Therefore there may be cases in which it can be argued that certain acts of adultery may lead to entitlement to pension. That is never the intention or meaning.
This can be put right in two ways: first, by the right hon. Gentleman considering whether he should not give to cohabitation, or whatever he cares to call it, the same position as he gives to a re-marriage so far as pension rights are concerned; secondly, by using a word which means what is intended; and there are plenty of Anglo-Saxon words available. Even Mr. James Thurber has used some quite poetic descriptions which the right hon. Gentleman might use if he wished; or he can give a clear definition at the conclusion of the Bill as to precisely what is meant by this and precisely what are the limitations, which I hope will be drawn as tightly as possible.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) very properly said, we spent a good deal of time discussing this matter in Standing Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) that what was meant by "cohabit" was well understood in all parts of the Standing Committee. I understand that it is a term of art which is well understood in Acts of Parliament, and also I imagine in courts of law, although I agree that the dictionary meaning is undoubtedly the one mentioned by my hon. Friend. I shall certainly look at this again before the Bill goes to another place, but it appears to us that the meaning of the word is well understood. For that reason it might perhaps be a waste of time—

I put it no higher and no lower than that—to move further Amendments to add certain words which may qualify the matter for the benefit of my hon. Friend but not for the ordinary citizen or the person who will have to study this Bill. The Treasury well understand what is meant by the word, and after all it is the Treasury who will have to use its discretion in this matter.

Mr. Charles Williams: We do seem to be in rather a difficulty here because the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted that he is not very clear on the matter. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has pointed out the great difficulties which may arise. I understand that there was considerable debate on this in Standing Committee, and I should have thought that by the time we had reached this stage of the Bill there ought not to be uncertainty about whether "cohabit" means that a man is living with his mother-in-law. It is all very well to leave this until yet a later stage, but I should have thought that the simple and expeditious way of dealing with such a problem would have been to have present a Law Officer who would know precisely what it meant. It is very bad that it should go out from this House that we are passing something which the Treasury does not really understand. In any event, we ought to be enacting not what the Treasury understand but what will be a legal fact. We ought not to leave anything to be interpreted by any one Ministry, or any part of a Ministry, however efficient it may be. While there is no question of voting against this Amendment, I must express my dissatisfaction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "from" to the end of the line, and to insert "that date."

This is consequential.

Mr. C. Williams: In the event of its being consequential, I would point out that we are being consequential about something, when we do not really understand what we are doing.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.0 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the financial effect now that this Amendment has been made, because the scheme is contributory and the Exchequer are paying a portion. Presumably when the Bill was first presented to the House the actuaries had worked out an estimate of what was involved in this Clause. Presumably through this Amendment there will be increase in expenditure, and we should be told how much it is. I should like before we part with this Clause, once again to lodge a protest, as I did on the Second Reading, against the penalisation, as I consider it to be, of widows who remarry. I still think it is a cruel piece of legislation wherever it occurs. I am not singling out this Bill in particular, but it seems to me quite wrong that when a widow remarries, she should lose certain rights and pension, especially in view of the fact that her husband contributed towards those benefits.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised two points, and if I may I should like to answer the second first. It is quite true that a civil servant will have to contribute towards his pension, but not to anything like the extent of the full value which may be paid by way of a pension. When working this out the actuaries realised that a certain number of widows would marry again and, therefore, would cease to draw a pension. That makes it cheaper for the civil servants and also for the State, because half is being paid by the taxpayer. It will be wrong if under this scheme, the taxpayer has to pay more and the civil servant in his lifetime has to pay a higher contribution in order that the widow should draw a pension until the day she dies even though she had remarried. If she marries again it is assumed that her husband should keep her, and there is no reason why the taxpayer should.
The extra cost of this Amendment is negligible. We do not assume that widows of all civil servants will—I hesitate to use the word but it is the only one which occurs to me—cohabit once they become widows, and the short answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that I do not think there will be many cases of this kind, and that in any event the cost will be negligible.

Mr. C. Williams: It is quite obvious that the widow under this Clause is in a position whereby she might lose her pension. I should like to ask if it is possible for the man to lose his pension as well, not under this Clause maybe, but under some other regulation. Do the two things combine?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I probably misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said, but the widow will not start drawing her pension until she is a widow, so that the husband by that time will be dead.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. A widow in certain circumstances loses her pension. Is it possible that the person she marries, who is also a civil servant, could also lose his pension under some other regulation? Could that case occur?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Whether the widower loses his pension largely depends on the source. Once the widow marries a second time, the pension ceases, so that to that extent it is quite immaterial where the husband gets his income from. It is his job to keep his wife. If ever he deserts her, or goes mad or if quite a number of things happen to him and the widow once again becomes destitute, discretion is given to the Treasury under this Amendment to re-issue the pension if they think it is desirable.

Mr. Williams: Therefore, it is possible for both parties to lose their pensions, one under this regulation and the other under another regulation.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(CHILDREN'S PENSIONS: BENEFICIARIES.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out "reason of her marriage," and to insert "virtue of this subsection."
This does for the child of the family what we have done for the widow in the previous Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, leave out line 14, and insert:
(b) the Treasury are satisfied at a subsequent date that the marriage or cohabitation


has come to an end or that there are compassionate grounds for permitting the pension to enure for her benefit notwithstanding the marriage.

Leave out line 17, and insert "that date."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hale: As I understand it, the Amendments just moved make an important and generous improvement in the Bill, which we should welcome, because it means that the children's rights are protected if marriage or cohabitation ceases and their rights can be restored. That brings us to the real question which comes up under Clause 17 again, and that is whether under that Clause my right hon. Friend should not, between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, consider adding that where cohabitation ceases the matter will be reconsidered in the same way as where the marriage ceases.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I should make the matter clear. My hon. Friend was not on the Committee and perhaps I should have remembered that, but here we are dealing with a female child over 16 who may be still at school and for that reason the pension is still paid to her. She may well be a girl of seventeen or eighteen, and the Treasury may, in its wisdom, have to exercise its discretion to re-issue the pension to her. In this part of the Bill we get the problem of the incapacitated child, who, in certain circumstances, can go on for life on pension. It was felt that it would be grossly unfair to cut off her pension indefinitely if some rogue got hold of her temporarily and lived on her pension. That comes under this Clause, and that is the reason why we are doing this.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(LIFE PENSIONS.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move in page 14, line 28, to leave out from "section," to end of line 30, and to insert:
and
(ii) the Treasury are satisfied at a subsequent date that the marriage or cohabitation has come to an end or that there are compassionate grounds for the payment of pension notwithstanding the marriage.

We are doing here just what we did in Clause 4 when we made Amendments there. This gives discretion to the Treasury in regard to the widow, and we want to do it for the female under the dependents scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 32, leave out from "from," to end of line, and insert "that date."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 18.—(PENSIONS OF LIMITED DURATION.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 15, line 37, to leave out "reason of her marriage," and to insert "virtue of this subsection."
We have now come to the dependent children and the series of Amendments to Clause 18 deal with them.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I want to raise a point which is very much the same as that mentioned earlier. It seemed rather ridiculous that a dependent child should have a pension taken away in those circumstances. I rise to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) just now. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Law Officers on the meaning of the word "cohabit." I think the hon. Member for Oldham has mentioned something which is quite important. I remember that in one of the earliest cases I ever had at the Bar, a woman was charged with taking a pension while cohabiting. It shows that different expressions can be used to describe those circumstances. It is desirable to use the same phrases to describe the same thing. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Law Officers, he might save a lot of trouble later.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, leave out line 39, and insert:
(b) the Treasury are satisfied at a subsequent date that the marriage or cohabitation has come to an end or that there are compassionate grounds for permitting the pension to enure for her benefit notwithstanding the marriage.

In page 15, leave out line 42, and insert "that date."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32.—(INCREASE OF SUPERANNUATION AND ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES IN CASES OF RETIREMENT FOR ILL-HEALTH WITH LESS THAN TWENTY YEARS' SERVICE.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 26, line 4, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) The provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to persons who retired from the Civil Service at any time after the third day of December nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and to persons who so retired on or before that date and are living at the passing of this Act, and superannuation allowances and additional allowances granted before the passing of this Act may be increased accordingly; but nothing in this subsection shall authorise the payment, in respect of any period before the passing of this Act of any increase in the superannuation allowance of a person who retired as aforesaid on or before the said third day of December.
The Clause as it now stands permits those who retired on grounds of ill-health after 3rd December, 1948, with more than 10 years' but less than 20 years' reckonable pension, to be assessed for pension as if 20 years' service had in fact been given. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) moved an Amendment in Standing Committee and asked that this concession should be applied to those who had already retired on 3rd December, 1948, as from some current date. The Amendment now proposed accedes to his request.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The concession will be generally welcomed. It extends to persons who have already retired, the benefit of getting at least one quarter of their retiring salary by way of pension in the same way that the original Bill proposed for persons retiring from the Civil Service after the passage of the Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, since he opposed a number of proposals of this character during the Committee stage on the ground that they would be expensive and costly to the Exchequer, to tell us the estimated cost of the concession now being made.

Mr. Charles Smith: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for the concession which he is making. I associate myself with the question which has just been asked of him, and I should also like to ask

the number of people likely to be affected by the concession.

Mr. C. Williams: I support what was said by my right hon. Friend, and I also should like to make how many people the concession will affect. Obviously he must have had that information in Standing Committee or he could not have rejected the proposal. The fact that he has changed his mind may be connected with the number of people as well as with the cost, and it is a matter in which most of us would be interested, especially those of us who have a large number of pensioners in our constituencies.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in one particular. I did not reject the Amendment. I undertook to have it considered between the Committ stage and the Report stage. We have considered it, and my right hon. and learned Friend has been glad to accede to the request made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends behind me. The cost of the concession will be negligible. I do not know exactly what the number affected will be, but we shall obviously know in due course. We felt that the number would not be great and that it would be a waste of time to make an inquiry. We shall have to collect the information and get into touch with the people if the Amendment be accepted.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Williams: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I inadvertently used the word "reject" when I should have used the word "consider." It does rather strengthen our case. If it was a matter of rejection, the right hon. Gentleman has gone further than if it were a matter of consideration, when he would be doing obviously what he promised the Committee. Another matter to which I would draw attention is that not very long since, the Treasury always gave some sort of estimate of cost before advising the Committee to accept or reject an Amendment. I would point out, not in a hostile way, that the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to give the estimates called for and that therefore the Treasury are not so efficient as they used to be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36.—(ADDITIONS TO PENSIONS, ETC., IN CERTAIN CASES OF UNESTABLISHED EMPLOYMENT AFTER RETIREMENT.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 30, line 11, after "year," to insert "not exceeding five."
The object of this Amendment and the one that follows is to prevent an anomaly arising in the case of those who give service after the retiring age, some of which is reckonable under Clause 35 as service rendered before the civil servant leaves the established service, and the remainder of which is reckonable under Clause 36 as service by a re-engaged pensioner, and which together amount to six years or more. Clause 35 deals with the established man who continues after he has reached the retiring age in an established capacity. This Clause deals with the established man who continues in an established capacity and, having gone out, comes back and continues in an unestablished capacity.
As drafted, the Bill requires service rendered after the retiring age to reckon under Clause 35, in so far as it is reckonable under that Clause, and only allows service to be reckoned under Clause 36 to the extent that the Clause 35 service has not exhausted the maximum of five years' reckonable under that Clause. This Amendment, and those which succeed it relating to this Clause, allow the civil servant who has served sufficiently long to have reckonable service under both Clauses, together amounting to six years or more, to count his years under Clause 36 and not his years under Clause 35 if they give him a better pension. In other words, we are giving under the two Clauses the best of both worlds to the civil servant.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Could we have an estimate of what is involved in this?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It will not add noticeably to the estimate of cost given on Committee. All we are doing is to give the civil servant the right to be dealt with under Clause 36 if it gives him a better lump sum and pension, or Clause 35 if that gives him a higher lump sum and pension or under a combination of the two Clauses if that gives him better provision. It makes very little difference to the cost.

Mr. Keenan: I have a case in mind and I should like to know if it is covered by these provisions. It is that of a Customs officer who after 37 years' service retired in 1938. He returned in 1940 and worked five years and four months in a post similar to the one he occupied before. He was compulsorily retired at 61 and did not complete 40 years, only getting 37-eightieths. I have sought opinion and have been told that for some reason he will not qualify. He returned to the service in May, 1940, and did not retire until August, 1945. Will this Clause cover that individual and permit him at least to count three of those years, thus making his pension 40-eightieths instead of 37-eightieths?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that the case put by my hon. Friend is that the officer came back during the war and finally retired in 1945. If so, he cannot benefit under this Clause.

Mr. C. Williams: A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman was saying that the civil servant would get the best of both worlds. I do not in the least object to that, but it would hardly be right if we went any further without pointing out that in those circumstances the taxpayer will obviously get the worst of both worlds. While I do not in any way quarrel with the Amendment—indeed I would support it if any hon. Member opposed it in the Division lobby—I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) had been in charge, he would have given us an estimate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, leave out lines 22 to 25, and insert:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of the last preceding section, no year shall be taken into account thereunder which would make the number of years taken into account under that and the last preceding subsection exceed five in all."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 30, line 37, to leave out subsection (6).
This is a drafting Amendment. We shall be coming back to this later when we deal with a subsequent Amendment on Clause 47.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40.—(PART-TIME SERVICE.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 34, line 45, after "to," to insert:
one half or, if and so far as that service took place before the passing of this Act.
This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment to Clause 38 which we have not yet dealt with, but with which we shall deal on the Report stage. I ask the Committee to take the Amendment on trust until we reach that Amendment which I have no doubt will be debated.

Mr. Peake: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment is consequential upon what the Government propose to do as regards Clause 38. When we reach Clause 38 on the Report stage we shall have some rather strong expressions to give vent to with regard to the attitude which the Government have taken upon this matter of unestablished service. At this stage, I only want to protect my position by saying that though we shall accept this Amendment without a Division, we object to the qualifying words:
If and so far as that service took place before the passing of this Act.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I want to enter a similar qualification. I am prepared to agree to what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I understand that there will be an opportunity later to express our opinions about the question of part-time service.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I hope very much that when we come to Clause 38 the Government will either withdraw their proposed Amendment or that, if they do not, we shall soundly beat them in the Lobby. Suppose we do beat them in the Lobby on Clause 38, would the Government then agree that the Amendment which we are now asked to pass should be withdrawn and the terms of this Clause amended to conform with the terms of Clause 38 as it would then be?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Most certainly I give that assurance. Obviously what we do in this Clause must follow what we do in Clause 38, otherwise it makes nonsense of quite a lot of the Bill. I give an assurance that if any change is made in the Government proposal when we reach Clause 38, this will have to be amended

again in another place in order to make it correspond.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I want to enter a similar caveat to that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace). There is an additional point about which the Financial Secretary might like to say a word. He will remember that during the Committee stage we discussed the rather unusual position of the assistant postmen in the Post Office whose service was whole-time and not part-time in the accepted sense of this Clause. There was some understanding that my right hon. Friend would look further into the matter to see how far assistant postman service could be counted as full-time rather than the half-time referred to in the Amendment. Has my right hon. Friend a statement to make on that?

Mr. Hollis: Surely it would be much more convenient, Mr. Bowles, to leave the Amendment out and to let another place deal with it if it is necessary. It is highly probable that the Government will be defeated this afternoon on a subsequent Amendment and this one will then be unnecessary. It would be much more convenient to leave this out and then, in the unlikely event of the Government being victorious, it could be dealt with subsequently.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): This is not a matter for an expression of opinion by the Chair. I have no views about the matter at all.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that that would be an unwise thing to do, and I ask the Committee to reflect before it takes that course. I have given an undertaking and I can assure the Committee that it will be honoured if any change is made when we reach Clause 38. It is much better that we should insert these words rather than leave them for another place. I do not know whether the question of privilege would arise in another place, and I am not quite sure of the powers of another place in this matter, although, of course, privilege could be waived if an Amendment was inserted, particularly if it was inserted at the request of the Government. However, I advise the Committee to deal with the matter here.

Mr. C. Williams: The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) is the commonsense suggestion. On the other hand, whatever happens at the next stage, the inclusion of these words in the Bill will in all probability eventually improve the position. For that reason, although I dislike some of the words used by the Financial Secretary, for once I feel that we should accept what he advises, although it seems a pity that these things have to be taken in this sequence.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47.—(APPLICATION OF PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACTS, LUNACY ACT, 1890, FORFEITURE ACT, 1870, ETC.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 42, line 1, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) The following provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, that is to say—

(a) subsection (2) of section three (which prevents a pension being increased where the amount of the pension is determined by reference to a rate of emoluments received on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or by reference to an average rate of emolument received over a period of service beginning on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six);
(b) subsection (3) of the said section three (which requires any increase of pension to be reduced where the amount of the pension is determined by reference to an average rate of emoluments received over a period of service beginning before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, but ending after that date),

shall not apply to a superannuation allowance computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section thirty-six of this Act unless they would have applied thereto had it been computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof.
(2) Where subsection (3) of section three of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947 (as modified by the preceding subsection) applies to a superannuation allowance computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section thirty-six of this Act, the period of service by reference to which the amount mentioned in the said paragraph (a) is determined shall be deemed for the purposes of the said subsection (3) to have begun and ended on the same dates as the period of service which would have been relevant if the superannuation allowance had been computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the said section thirty-six.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section three of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944 (which requires increases otherwise payable under that Act to be withheld or reduced in the case of pensions increased in consequence of war bonus or similar payments) a superannuation allowance computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section thirty-six of this Act may be increased under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947, to an amount not exceeding the amount to which that allowance could have been increased in accordance with the provisions of those Acts and subsection (3) of section sixty of this Act, if it had been computed upon the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the said section thirty-six.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent a re-engaged pensioner who is due to gain extra pension under Clause 36 finding that it is swallowed up in a loss of the pensions increase awarded to him on his original pension. Subsection (6) of Clause 36, now transferred to this Clause, has already dealt with one of the provisions in the Pensions (Increase) Acts which had to be dealt with to prevent this anomaly. The remaining provisions in this rather long Amendment deal with other provisions of the Pension (Increase) Acts which investigation has shown also need to be taken into account. Generally this Amendment safeguards the position of pensioners who have received increases under the 1944 and 1947 Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56.—(APPLICATION OF THIS ACT TO COMPENSATION AND RETIRING ALLOWANCES.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 45, line 29, after "forty-three," to insert:
and section (Counting of certain war services for superannuation purposes).
This Amendment is in anticipation of the Committee accepting the new Clause to which we shall come presently and, if that is passed, it will enable the man who succeeded in the 1914 and 1915 competitions for the Civil Service, but did not take up his appointment until after the war because of war service, to count his war service for superannuation. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee upstairs will remember that I then promised to consider this. My right hon. and learned Friend has considered it, and we have agreed


to accede to the request then made in Committee.

Mr. Peake: I understand that this Amendment paves the way for the new Clause in the name of the Financial Secretary which meets completely the point brought forward during the Committee stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker). My hon. Friend discovered that there were some 80 or 90 civil servants who, at the call of King and country in 1914 or 1915, having already passed the Civil Service examination, went to the war and, in consequence, lost four or five reckonable years for the purposes of pension. Those civil servants, if they have not already retired, are now approaching the retirement age, they are in the higher ranks of the Civil Service, and I am sure that they will be extremely grateful to the Government for meeting the point brought forward by my hon. Friend, and meeting it in full.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 47, line 23, after "person," to insert "his stepfather and."
Again Members of the Standing Committee will remember that it was suggested that we should include stepfathers and stepmothers within the definition. I promised that on Report stage this would be done, and the Amendment is in fulfilment of the promise then made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 34, after "person," insert "his stepmother and."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(COUNTING OF CERTAIN WAR SERVICE FOR SUPERANNUATION PURPOSES.)

(1) Where a person to whom this section applies had, before he became a civil servant, served in whole-time service in the armed forces of the Crown, the merchant navy or the mercantile marine at any time between the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen and the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, then if and so far as that service took place after the date on which he was declared

successful in a competitive examination for persons desiring to become civil servants or, as the case may be, the date on which he was nominated by the head officer of a Government department for appointment to the civil service, it shall be reckoned for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts as if it had been service as a civil servant.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person who became a civil servant more than three months after the date on which he was declared or nominated as mentioned in the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have served in whole-time service in the armed forces of the Crown, the merchant navy or the mercantile marine during the whole of the period between that date and the date on which he became a civil servant, unless the contrary appears.

(3) This section shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to persons who are civil servants at the date of the passing of this Act and to persons who retired from the civil service before that date and are living at the passing of this Act, and superannuation allowances and additional allowances granted before the passing of this Act may be increased accordingly; but nothing in this subsection shall authorise the payment, in respect of any period before the date of the passing of this Act, of any increase in the superannuation allowance of a person who retired from the civil service before that date.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee is familiar with what we seek to do in this Clause; in fact, I have just referred to it in moving an Amendment to Clause 56. We desire here to count for superannuation purposes certain war service given by men during the 1914–18 war who entered the Civil Service but physically did not take up their appointments because they went straight into the Forces. It has long been felt by a number of people that this was unfair, that they should be allowed to count that period, and we are putting the matter right now by giving them the right so to count that service. The number involved is not great, being between 80 and 90, and I am delighted that we are at last doing justice to these men.

Major Legge-Bourke: All of us on this side of the Committee will join with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has done. For purposes of clarification, however, before we part with the Clause, would he explain why he has had to put in subsection (2), and why


the wording of the Clause is considerably different from that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker). Subsection (2) mentions a period of three months and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clarify that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is normal for a person entering the Civil Service to take up the appointment within a month or so. Here we are dealing with a group of men particulars of whose war service may be unknown to us. Therefore it is essential that we should assume certain things, and this gives us legal power to credit these men with a period of war service which cannot officially be verified.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Mr Glenvil Hall.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it to be understood that you are not calling the new Clause standing in the name of my two hon. Friends and myself—(Counting of certain service in the regular forces of the Crown for superannuation purposes)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. Mr. Speaker has not selected it. It is out of Order because it increases the charge.

Clause 8.—(RETURN OF PERIODICAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER PART I.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out from "years." to "and," in line 25.
This Amendment and the corresponding Amendment to Clause 21 prepare the way for the new paragraph 1 which it is proposed to move, and which I hope will be inserted, in the Second Schedule. The object of these Amendments is to make a minor adjustment in the machinery for the payment of contributions. A civil servant may make contributions either by deductions from his salary year by year, or by an abatement of the lump

sum which he receives on retirement, or, if he dies whilst still serving, from the lump sum paid to his estate. Civil servants may complete 40 years' reckonable service before age 60, or at that age or later. Both categories, if they have elected to pay by deduction from salary, continue to do so until they retire; but the first category—those who complete 40 years' reckonable service before the age of 60—unlike the second, will under the Clause as it stands have these deductions returned to them, not only in so far as they have been paid in respect of their period of service between the completion of 40 years' reckonable service and age 60, but also in so far as they have been paid in respect of any service rendered after the age of 60. If, therefore, they are to continue to serve after the age of 60, their contributions in respect of this period of their service will have to be settled by abatement of the lump sum.
Representations have been made to the Treasury by the National Staff Side that this distinction is unreasonable and unnecessary. It is agreed, therefore, that the Amendment should be put down; it puts both categories in exactly the same position.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO EXISTING AND FUTURE MALE CIVIL SERVANTS.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, after "capacity," to insert "or part-time service."
The effect of this Amendment and the two which follow is that the Clause determines the categories of civil servants who have the option to contract out of the widows' scheme in Part I of the Bill. Those who have this right are, under the Bill as now drafted, those who at the date of the passing of the Act were already serving in either an established or an unestablished capacity and who subsequently became established. The effect of the Amendments is to add those who at that time were serving in a part-time capacity, and who subsequently became established. This is a little technical but it is essential that we should have these words inserted in order to include the part-timer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 5, leave out "his service in that capacity," and insert "that service."

In line 6, leave out "the half," and insert "any part."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 14.—(SUPERANNUATION ACTS TO APPPLY IN THEIR MOST RECENT FORM WHERE PART I APPLIES.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 16, leave out "enter," and insert "entered."

In line 44, leave out from "allowances," to "might," in line 45.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 17.—(LIFE PENSIONS.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, to leave out subsection (5).
This Amendment paves the way for an Amendment to Clause 61, in page 47, line 35, which transfers this definition to the Interpretation Clause, where it properly belongs in view of the transfer to the First Schedule of the provisions relating to the incapacitated child.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(PENSIONS OF LIMITED DURATION.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 15, line 18, to leave out "deceased," and to insert "nominator."
Elsewhere in the Clause the civil servant is referred to as the "nominator." We thought we had better use the same word on each occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21.—(RETURN OF PERIODICAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER PART II.)

Amendments made: In page 17, line 23, leave out "qualified," and insert "eligible."

In line 24, leave out "qualified," and insert "eligible."

In line 35, leave out from "years," to end of line 39.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 25.—(PREVENTION OF OVERLAP WITH PART I.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move in page 20, line 40, to leave out "would have," and to insert "had."
This is a matter of drafting. The point here is that these people are to be treated as if they had actually been eligible for pension.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31.—(SUPERANNUATION ACTS TO APPLY IN THEIR MOST RECENT FORM WHERE NOMINATIONS MADE.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 2, leave out "enter," and insert "entered."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 25, line 28, to leave out from "allowances," to "might."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hollis: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a merely drafting Amendment, but may we have an explanation——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I have put the Question and collected the voices. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he did not get up before I did so.

Clause 38.—(RECKONING OF UNESTABLISHED SERVICE.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 32, line 3, after "1935," to insert:
and section three of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
This and a number of subsequent Amendments to the Clause all have the same object. I think the House is well aware that when we were dealing with this matter upstairs the Committee came to the conclusion by a narrow majority that the whole of the service should count. We are endeavouring here to make the change.

Mr. Peake: I would respectfully suggest that we should accept the first two Amendments, which are, I think merely of a drafting character, and take the discussion on the third Amendment, which proposes to leave out certain words inserted by the Standing Committee, for it is upon that Amendment that we on this side shall wish to make a demonstration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 3, leave out "relates," and insert "relate."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, in page 32, line 4, to leave out from "shall" to "apply," in line 8.
This matter arises, as my right hon. Friend has said, from a discussion which took place on the Committee stage as a result of which the Government were defeated in Committee and an alteration was made to the Clause. This is a matter in which it is very easy to arouse people's sympathy and, indeed, it is very easy for us all to feel sympathy for the cause. It is a question which arises out of the policies of past Governments who have not seen fit to reckon unestablished service towards established pension. The House will recollect that the Tomlin Commission made an investigation into this subject matter, which was very much discussed as a result of the large amount of unestablished service which originated in the first world war—and discussion was increased by the entrance of a great many ex-Service men on that basis after the first world war.
The Tomlin Commission recommended that the unestablished service, if the performer of that service was subsequently established, should be counted as to half towards the pension which would be earned under establishment. In 1935, a very long time after the problem arose, the Act was passed which, as from 1935, made one half of the unestablished service countable towards the established pension and that state of affairs continued until 1946, when my predecessor decided to extend the period during which unestablished service could count for half back to 1919, the end of the first world war, from 1935. So the situation remains today.
The claim which has been put forward is that, instead of that unestablished service back to 1919 reckoning for one half, it should reckon in total, 100 per cent. That was the effect of the Amendment passed on Committee stage and my right hon. Friend, who was conducting the Bill through the Committee, told the Committee that he would lay the matter before me and acquaint me with the arguments which had been brought forward in the Committee. He has duly acquainted me with them and the Government have considered the situation. Everyone will agree that, broadly speaking, the Bill is a very good advance as a whole in the matter of superannuation of civil servants,

but, as in all these matters, there must at any given time be a limit to the amount of advance which can be made.
If one were to give way to all the desirable suggestions which are made for the improvement of the conditions and the lot of the people of this country in every sort of walk of life, I am afraid that the demands of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that we should reduce taxation would never even look like being met. As I remarked on the occasion of the Budget Debate, it is, after all, the privilege of the House of Commons to protect the taxpayer from undue charges and, when one has worked out an elaborate scheme for assisting any particular body of taxpayers, one has to regard it in the light of the general economic situation of the country. That is what I have attempted to do in this case.
My right hon. Friend told the Committee that if the alteration were made—which in fact the Committee made in the Bill—it would lead to an immediate cost of between £1 million and £2 million a year, climbing to an eventual cost of £5 million to £7 million in about 15 years' time. I have had to consider whether we are justified in view of competing demands and in view of what we have already done for the civil servants, in spending this money in trying to put right what it is alleged some former Government did wrongly. My view is that, much as I should like to do this to assist those who have unestablished service, it is not possible or justifiable to make that immediate or prospective expenditure.
On the other hand, I am anxious that we should make it quite clear that this system both of long periods of unestablishment and of not taking those periods into account for pension purposes, should cease. I do not believe it was ever right to have these very long, indeed unending, periods of unestablishment. Nor was it right in the first place to introduce a system which might result over these long periods in very great loss of ultimate pension rights granted on establishment. We suggest that we should so alter this Clause—and the Amendment I am moving is one which will have that result in association with the other Amendments—that, as from the passing of this Bill, all unestablished service will in


future count 100 per cent. towards pension and that we should leave the antecedent period as it is at present. That would mean very little expense for the immediate next few years——

Mr. Peake: Surely it could not possibly mean any expense for the next 10 years, because no one qualifies for civil service pension unless he has 10 years of established service.

Sir S. Cripps: It would probably make no substantial effect for that period of time; that is perfectly correct. Eventually, of course, it would make an effect in so far as there was a continued long period of unestablishment. If there were no long period of unestablishment, it would have no effect, and we hope that in the future the unestablished period will be more of a probationary period and will not form a large factor in the employment of any civil servant who subsequently becomes established. We therefore suggest that these Amendments should be passed which will protect us from the immediate additional expenditure which would otherwise be incurred and which, as I have said quite frankly, we are not prepared to face; and on the other hand we suggest that we should make it quite clear that in future these evil effects of past policies will not be perpetuated.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just delivered to the House and the Amendment which he was moving will, as I think he must recognise, be a very great disappointment to thousands of civil servants——

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949.
2. Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949.
3. British Film Institute Act, 1949.
4. War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings, &amp;c.) Act, 1949.
5. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949.

6. Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949.
7. Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949.
8. Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order Confirmation (Special Procedure) Act, 1949.
9. Grimsby Corporation Act, 1949.
10. University of Nottingham Act, 1949.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee, and on recommittal) again considered.

Amendment: In page 32, line 4, to leave out from "shall" to "apply" in line 8.—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.'

Mr. Thorneycroft: The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, as I was saying, be a great disappointment not only to thousands of civil servants, but also to many Members sitting behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who feel strongly upon this particular point. I listened, as the whole House did, very carefully for any arguments the right hon. and learned Gentleman could adduce upon the merits of the case, and it would be no reflection upon him to say that there were no arguments adduced by him, for the very good reason that there are none that can be adduced. He had to restrict himself, therefore, to the issue of the cost, about which I shall say a few words in a moment. The only other point I should like to make about his speech just now is that I think he rather over-estimated the effect of the Amendment he has put upon the Order Paper. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, under the Government's proposal it would be difficult to see how anyone could benefit, for 10 years at any rate, and even that would be a very rare and exceptional case because these people would become eligible only 10 years from now and presumably most of them would go on serving a considerable time thereafter.
What this really amounts to is that we are paying these people with a postdated cheque, and a cheque which is dated very far ahead indeed. I, like most other Members, have been inundated with letters from Civil Service organisation


and from individual civil servants. There was one point which was brought to my notice this morning, which comes from the Civil Service Superannuation Joint Committee and merits special emphasis. They say:
It will hit especially hard those very lowly-paid messengers and paper-keeper grades, and Post Office grades, where it was the custom for many years of temporary service to precede establishment.
That is an important point which the House should take note of in dealing with this matter.
The case has already been elaborately argued during the Committee stage, and I am not going to make a long speech about its merits. The Committee came to a decision, and the Bill as it now stands represents that decision. The decision is that unestablished service should count in full for pension as soon as the civil servant becomes established. That is the position for which we shall contend, and I hope very much that Members opposite will also contend for it and use words to persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that if their words are of no avail they will use their votes. I do not think that anyone in private life with a servant who had served him faithfully for 20 years would turn round and tell him that he will get less pension because part of his service was on an unestablished basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?"] It would be regarded as a monstrous argument, and it would not be tolerated by Members opposite in their private affairs. Therefore, I see no reason why any of us should tolerate it in this case.
5.15 p.m.
The civil servant is paid less on balance than his colleagues in industry, and he is paid less because at the end of his period of service, he hopes to get a pension. The temporary civil servant is often paid even less, and so, a fortiori, he ought to rank for pension during the period when he was unestablished and lower paid. That his service should count for only half, is a position we cannot maintain. Of course, the position would be much easier if Governments before had taken a different line. But all reforms would be unnecessary if previous Governments had already carried them into effect.
Of course it would be easier if there were no unestablished civil servants, but there always will be unestablished civil servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We live in times when we have wars and matters of that kind when the Civil Service is widely expanded on a temporary basis, at the end of which it is necessary and proper that the Civil Service should be scaled down to some extent, when some go into industry and others elect to carry on in the public service. In such circumstances, there is no reason why people who remain in the Service should not count their unestablished time. Of course it can be said that a previous Government should have done something better, or that the Conservatives ought to have taken a different line in 1935; but it is a most extraordinary thing for any Government to model itself on the actions of its predecessors some 30 years previously. That would be an astonishing agument to adduce, and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would ever use it.
As far as the costs are concerned, which is the substantial point to which the Chancellor addressed himself, I will say just this. A number of suggestions as to how this Bill could be amended were made in Committee, and some of those suggestions would have cost quite a lot of money. This was the one that was pressed the hardest, and it was probably the one which had the most merit. It was the one that was carried even in a Committee with a majority of Socialists upon it. But look at the Amendments and concessions which have been made, all of which have cost very little indeed. There was the concession made earlier today about the case where pensions had been cut off because the widow had been cohabiting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the cost was negligible in that case. Then there was the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith). That was met, and again the cost was negligible. There was Clause 36 and a certain amendment to the position about additional pension, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said would cost really nothing, at all. Then there was the point of the Service civil servant. A new Clause met the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), and I think that only 80 or 90 civil servants were involved.
No one can say that we have been extravagant so far with the concessions we have won from the Treasury in Amendments to this Bill. It is true that the cost in the first year will be between £1 million and £2 million, rising, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, to between £5 million and £7 million in 15 years' time. I must say, however, that when I first heard these figures I thought they were rather lower than the anticipated total cost might be of an Amendment of this kind. But every doing of justice of this character must cost money. I do not believe we are justified in saving money by doing less than justice to the servants of the Crown. We can argue very forcibly that fewer people should be employed in the Civil Service, but in so far as people are employed, and will be employed, in substantial numbers in that Service it is to everybody's interest, irrespective of party, to see that they are fairly treated. To postpone the whole matter for another 10 or 20 years cannot be accepted at all.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us the figures. He said that last year 86,000 civil servants became established. That means that these people will suffer. It is only unestablished service after the passing of the Bill which will count for pension. All these 86,000 are eliminated from the benefits of the Bill if the Government Amendment is carried. I do not think it would be the wish of the House that we should proceed in that way, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will use their undoubted influence to persuade the Chancellor to take a more generous view of this matter. I hope they will put not only the cost, which is important, but the justice of the case foremost in their argument. If we cannot get such a concession, then I very much hope they will join with us in putting the matter to the issue, because it is votes which eventually count and not speeches.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I do not in the least want to make any party points about the Bill; indeed, I have no party for which to make them, and I do not pretend for a moment that the Bill as it stands has not substantial merits and attractions from the point of view of the Civil Service. Nevertheless, I want to appeal to the Chancellor not to press the Government Amendment but to accept

the decision reached by the Committee upstairs. It is true, as he said, that the decision in Committee was reached by a very narrow margin—a majority of two in a Committee of 20 to 22 Members. But it is also the case—and I am sure I am within the recollection of every Member of that Committee—that there was not one speech in the whole of the Debate on this matter—Conservative, Labour, Liberal or Independent—which did not beg the Chancellor to do what the Committee upstairs ultimately decided by a small majority should be done. We must, therefore, start with the fact that it is the considered desire of the Committee, which represented all sides of the House, that the Clause should stand as it is in the Bill now and should not be amended as the Chancellor proposes to amend it today.
I want to make clear to the House, if I can, although I think most Members are familiar with this issue, what is the difference between the position of the Committee and the position now adopted by the Chancellor. For many decades the public service in this country has been troubled by a grotesque anomaly and a very substantial grievance; it is that when a man went out of the service at the end of his days he was pensioned not on the total length of service he had put in, but only on that portion of it which had been labelled with the word "established." All the rest of his service was completely disregarded.
I shall give one striking example, out of many hundreds which could be quoted, of the effect of that sort of thing. There is a servant of this House—there is not need to go across to Whitehall to find cases—who became established last year after having put in 44 years' service. In short, there is no relation at all between the meaning of the word "established" and the total length of time that the civil servant puts in.
Until a little while ago no unestablished service was allowed to count at all. Then, by the 1946 Act, a distinct improvement was made in that situation; it was decided that half of the service in an unestablished capacity, put in from 1919 onwards, should count for pension. Here is a point which is not without bearing on today's Debate. If the then Chancellor had taken the same line in 1946 as the present Chancellor is taking today, we would not have


got in that year the half service to count which, in fact, we did get. If he had said, "You cannot expect me, as Chancellor, to make up for the sins of my predecessors," that would have barred the 1946 Act and, indeed, would bar reforms of any kind. It is the constant and repeated fate of Governments to have to do things because of the shortcomings of their predecessors. That is the whole idea of a change of Government. The whole idea is to get a new Government to do things which the old one did not do. The doctrine which the Chancellor has enunciated today would strike at the root of every conceivable kind of progress, both inside and outside the public service.
In Committee upstairs and today no Minister of the Crown attacked the merits of the proposal which was put forward. No word was said in defence of the situation in which only a half of unestablished service counted for pension. Today, the Chancellor has not sought to make any defence; rather has he confirmed the case. By saying that in future that kind of situation should never be allowed to arise he is really saying that it should not have been allowed to arise in the past. If it ought not to have been allowed to arise in the past, we ought, therefore, to put it right now.
In effect, the Chancellor says, "I will concede the case that you have made, but not to you. I will concede the merits of your argument, and I will see that anyone who enters the service in future will not be badly treated in this way, but I will do nothing to alleviate the bad treatment of those who have borne the heat and burden of the day in the past, and who are still in the Service." There is a Scriptural precedent for this in the case of the labourer who enters the vineyard at the eleventh hour, and who gets the same trade union rate as the man who enters at nine o'clock in the morning. But there is no precedent, Scriptural, or otherwise, that I can think of, which would justify the giving of a penny a day to the man who has not yet entered and only a halfpenny to those who have done 30 to 40 years' service.
Suppose we do not retain the Clause as it stands, and accept the Government Amendment. Does not the Chancellor realise, as I am sure most of us do, that the fact of making that provision

for future entrants will intensify, rather than diminish, the sense of grievance of those who have put in long service and who are still working. He confronts us with the situation in which, year after year, theses public servants will be coming to us to ask that this matter should be put right, and neither he nor we will be able to give any answer on the merits except "You cannot ask this Government to bear and pay for the sins of their predecessors."

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: We should "go broke" if they did.

Mr. Brown: It may be that we shall even go broke without the Government having remedied the sins of their predecessors. Is it not plain that we shall have a permanent canker of discontent on this matter if we do not put it right?
The Chancellor makes the point, which is a fair one for him to make, and I do not complain about it, that if they are to put things right for people in every walk of life the result would be, so to speak, to break the camel's back. That is a perfectly fair point, but does not the Chancellor recognise, as I think the rest of us will, that we stand in a special relation to the people about whom we are now talking? In a general way the Government are responsible for the whole of the people of the country, and still more grave, the people of the country are responsible for the Government, but there is no doubt that there is a special relationship between the Government and the people about whom we are speaking today. These men are our servants, and though there may be many injustices affecting sections of the community who are not our servants, many injustices which we would desire to put right, here is an injustice touching our own servants, and we cannot shelter from the responsibility for putting that right by any consideration that there are a lot of other people who also suffer injustice.
I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to be here later, because I have to go to a conference at Cardiff, and I have to travel tonight. That will explain my absence from the Division Lobby, if we have to go through the Division lobbies, which I hope we shall not have to do. I ask the Chancellor to deliver us from the intolerable position which


the passage of his Amendment would create. I have never seen, in a long life of agitation—I have done about 35 years of Civil Service work—all this House in agreement that something should be done on a particular Civil Service matter. I have known occasions when the Labour Party have rendered extremely valuable support for claims which I, with others, was advancing on behalf of civil servants. I have known cases when I have had support from Members on this side of the House, for which I have been grateful, I cannot remember an occasion when the cumulative disposition of all was so great in favour of justice being done to the civil servants of this country. On every count, I ask the Chancellor not to press his Amendment, but to accept the decision of the Committee upstairs, which faithfully reflects the view of the House, and to leave the Clause as it now stands in the Bill.

Mr. H. Wallace: I do not propose to go over points which have already been raised, because I am in agreement with the views which have been expressed. Like the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I agree that there are merits, and substantial merits, in this Bill. It has been said that we should not make a party question of this; certainly I do not wish to do so. Like the hon. Member for Rugby also I have spent most of my life seeking for improvements, of which this has certainly been one. I cannot but feel happy that all parts of the House are at last united that this fiction of unestablished service should be abolished. From the passing of this Bill it will be abolished, and I attach great value to that fact.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing can be done here because of the repercussions elsewhere. I take the view that the unestablished civil servant is in a special position. He was engaged by the Civil Service to do certain duties. He was denied the proper pay for those duties and the proper emoluments. The Chancellor speaks of the cost. May I remind him of the loss to the men who did the work, received a lower rate of pay and were robbed of their pensionable service? I cannot agree that those unestablished civil servants are only in the position of people outside the Service because an unestablished civil

servant is in a special position. They have got their certificates, and look forward to establishment.
I wish to join in the appeal to the Chancellor to have another look at this matter. I do not intend to be dogmatic. He has talked about the cost. There are other ways of approaching this question. I should like to feel that he would try to meet the desire of the House and not alter the Bill as it now stands. Before I sit down, because I do not think there is any need for a long argument, I wish to say that the agitation for this reform will not cease until it has been carried out. How can a civil servant who will have three years' unestablished service after the passing of the Act, which will count in full, be satisfied when he has three years' service before the passing of the Act which will count only as to one half. The matter cannot stop there and it would be far better if an attempt were made now to settle the question. I hope that the Chancellor will look again at the date.
I have referred to the fact that there are what I call small areas here which might be put right. In view of what has been said by the Financial Secretary, I wish to see if I can get some statement this afternoon about those points. I would remind the Chancellor that although the Government were defeated upstairs by a small majority, a number of Members voted with the Government because we had a promise that all the points raised would be looked at as a whole. As has been said, there was finally a concentration upon this particular point. The Chancellor ought therefore to appreciate that in order to try to get this reform, quite a number of points are not being pressed.
The two points which I wish to raise are as follow: I have previously referred to the grade known as assistant postman. Technically, a man in that grade was a part-time but really a whole time officer——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is going rather wide of the point before the House. He must concentrate on the Amendment which is before the House, and not refer to other matters which have been dropped in order that the Government should not make this Amendment.

Mr. Wallace: I think that when we reached this discussion you indicated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would allow it to be rather wide to permit of reference being made to a later Amendment, in Clause 40, page 34, line 45, because the two questions are related.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may proceed, and I will see how far he goes.

Mr. Wallace: I am pressing now the point of view of a service which was unestablished, the assistant postman service. Technically the duty is part-time, but they were whole-time servants. I wish to ask the Chancellor whether that case can be considered Departmentally. I hope it can.
With regard to the other I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I may run counter to your Ruling. If so, I shall abide by your decision. As I understand it what is to happen to the part-time civil servants is related to the decision now made by the House on the Amendment in the name of the Chancellor. I have emphasised the point that many of these men did do full time duty for a number of months each year and may have so done this duty for 10, 15 or 20 years. I wish to ask whether those cases can be specially considered departmentally. If those two grievances could be removed it would help considerably in connection with the main point.
I hope the Chancellor will listen to the appeals which have been made to—I will put it this way—modify this date and make some concession to those men and women who have given so many years of service. If after twenty years of agitation have been conducted we say, "You will get nothing, but those who come in the future will," it really is expecting too much of human nature to think that they can accept a decision like that; though I appreciate very much that the Chancellor wishes to bring this obnoxious system to an end. Hon. Members have not pressed other points, because they hoped that the Chancellor would be able to make some concession with regard to the date of application. I hope that the appeal which has been made will not be in vain.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Chancellor of the Exchequer used an

argument today with which I think hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree. He said that unestablished service was something in the nature of a probationary period. If that had been observed, this problem would never have arisen. We were given an illustration by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) of a man who had given unestablished service for a period of over 40 years. That is not probation or anything in the nature of probation. It is clearly an unjustified period of service, if he is to serve for a period of 40 years and to be given no pension at the end of it because it was unestablished service. It does not even come within the very correct definition of what unestablished service should be which was given by the Chancellor himself. Parliament has recognised that that definition is unfair and in 1946 passed an Act making provision for half of that service.
But by what principle can we say that half of it shall count? Taking again the instance given by the hon. Member for Rugby, that would reduce the period to 20 years. Twenty years is quite as long a probationary period as 40 years. From the probationary point of view, there is no difference between 20 years and 40 years. Therefore, using the argument of the Chancellor himself and applying that test to it, surely if he is abolishing it from the present date forward, as he is in this Bill, that is quite a strong argument for abolishing it for the previous period too. I add my voice to the appeals made by other hon. Members that the Chancellor should look at this again.
The only argument he has given is one of additional cost. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) pointed out, he can meet that additional cost by combing the Civil Service. It is a great deal too big and it is being increased. He should meet that cost. Those people who have given long service should be given justice first of all, before the Civil Service Vote is increased. There are other methods, there are certain economies which he could effect, but this is not one of them, because in this case justice is involved. I hope that he will look at this again and reconsider the matter.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I would add my words to the appeals which are


being made that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider this again, and I would put forward three points. The first is that recently there has been brought into the Civil Service men who have given up positions outside in order to assist the Government in the very important work of a technical type which is now thrust upon them. There are a large number of these people who, if this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is accepted, will be particularly hardly treated. They are men who certainly deserve special consideration.
The second point I would make is that if a summary date is fixed, which just happens to be that of the passing of an Act, I am convinced that it is an arrangement which cannot last for any appreciable period of time. What is much more important is that a feeling of utter discontent will be created right through the Civil Service, and nothing is more essential than that the Civil Service should be a contented service and a service with prospects to look forward to. Knowing a good many of these men who happen to work in my part of the country, I feel that they have given loyal service. To treat them differently from those now coming in, will create a very false impression, and one not in the best interests of the Civil Service itself.
There is, thirdly, the question of the reduction of numbers in the Civil Service. I believe an efficient service is what all good civil servants wish to see established, but I do not think we shall ever get efficiency if we generate a sense of grievance. I am convinced that there will be a sense of grievance, because this proposal will be interpreted as being unfair. Ever since the days of Michael Hicks Beach it has been the business of the Chancellor to say, "No." This may cost something like £8 million, ultimately, but surely it is money well spent and equal savings could be made in other directions. The Civil Service should be contented and the right type of person encouraged to come into it.
This is not a party matter; I think all parties wish to see efficiency in the Civil Service. I have not heard one argument which would justify the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that this will be dealt with without our having to go into the

Division Lobby, because I believe that a great many hon. Members would be put in a most difficult position. As the Chancellor and the Treasury are nominally the directors of the Civil Service it is to them that the service should look for fair treatment, and this proposal is not treating the service fairly and properly and that appears to be the view of all hon. Members who have spoken.

Mr. W. R. Williams: It is not easy to adduce any arguments which have not already been used in this Debate, but I feel I cannot let the occasion pass without at least placing on record how I feel in this matter. In the first place, I should disclose my interest, which is that for the past 25 years, if not longer, I have been associated with the national staff side of the Civil Service and with associations in the Civil Service. There are two or three problems which are so old that we were dealing with them as far back as 25 years ago. It is, therefore, very difficult for a person in my position to feel that he can discard altogether the labour and the agitation of a quarter of a century, especially if one feels keenly that right is on one's side, as I feel it is here. I think that, in general, civil servants will agree when I say that never in the history of this country has so much been done in regard to the conditions of the Civil Service as has been done by this Government in the short time that they have been in power. We ought to make that perfectly clear.
I believe that this is the third occasion on which we have tried to improve the superannuation scheme in the Service. I recall with particular gratitude the effort of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor who agreed that half the period of unestablished service should count as from 1st January, 1919. That was a distinct improvement on the Act of 1935, which merely permitted the counting of half of that service as from the date of the application of that Act. But I felt, as I am sure did many other hon. Members, that although the then Chancellor could not concede the whole of the case we put forward at that time—he could not concede the years in full as some of us asked—it was only a matter of time before this Government in any future review of the Superannuation Acts would reach the same conclusion


as some of us did, and that the time was opportune to redress what had been an injustice over many years.
In regard to this Bill I agree with those who say that there have been substantial improvements. However, I qualify that by saying that if I had had my personal choice, with my long experience of the agitation in the Civil Service, I should have chosen to deal with one or two of the aspects under discussion today rather than some of the other matters which are in the Bill. I think that they go more deeply to the roots of the problem which has been agitating the minds of members of the Civil Service for the best part of a quarter of a century. I suppose that I should be ruled out of Order if I refered to the new Clause in the name of myself and my hon. Friends. I think I had better take note of your gesture, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think that hon. Members will know what I mean when I say that I am referring to the suggestion that service with the colours should count, and so on. That is one aspect. The other is undeniably the argument that unestablished service should count.
Only one matter grieves me in all this business. I have been reading a letter written by some hon. Gentleman opposite as to the attitude of certain people towards this Bill. I do not know how hon. Gentlemen opposite have the effrontery to do this. I think that it is cheek and impertinence on their part. They are trying to prove in the letter that there are some people on this side of the House who have not voted in favour of this provision upstairs.

Mr. Keeling: What does the letter say?

Mr. Williams: It is a letter of which I have seen a copy. If hon. Members want it to be read, I do not mind. It says:
The Committee stage was taken, not on the Floor of the House, but by a Standing Committee of which I was unfortunately not a member. I replied accordingly, but promised …
[HON. MEMBERS: "What Member?"] If hon. Gentlemen want the name, I do not mind giving it, but I thought that I would keep out any reference to it. The hon. Member writes:
I replied accordingly, but promised that the three following points would be ventilated on the Committee by Conservative Members.

Conservative Members put down an Amendment in favour of counting full temporary service for superannuation. …
The point I wish to make is that I think that they have got real cheek and impertinence to try to make people in the Civil Service and in the constituencies believe that had the Tories been in power now, they would have done something more and given something more to the Civil Service than is contained in this Bill. I wish to make it clear that in my opinion nothing would have been given by a Tory Government at this stage, having regard to what has been done before by this Government in the period of three years.

Mr. Keeling: I think that the hon. Member is quoting from a letter which I sent to some of my constituents. Is that so?

Mr. Williams: I should say that it was, yes.

Mr. Keeling: The letter is signed, so there cannot be any doubt about it. Is it so or not?

Mr. Williams: Yes.

Mr. Keeling: Why not say so? There is no statement in the letter which is not a precise and accurate statement of the facts. There is no attempt whatever to make any party capital except such as may accrue from the facts themselves.

Mr. Williams: I will not deny that. It is the truth all right, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is my difficulty with a statement of this kind, when a Tory who has done nothing for the Civil Service worth talking about for 25 or 30 years, has the effrontery now, when this Government have done so much, to try to belittle what has been done and to try to mislead the civil servants of the country.

Mr. Keeling: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says that it is not the whole truth? In what respect is it not the whole truth? It purports to be a statement of what happened on this Amendment in the Committee upstairs. I studied the matter very carefully and I attempted to state the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member wanted to give the whole truth, possibly


he might have suggested, "But this is infinitely more than my party would have given you had they been in power." I hope that with that explanation and understanding between the hon. Member for Twickenham and myself, I can proceed to my next point.
There are two important points involved. The first is the declaration made for the first time in my experience by any Government, that unestablished service is a vile thing, a bad thing which should not be countenanced any longer. That is a great declaration. Moreover, it is not only a declaration. We are assured by the Financial Secretary and by the Chancellor that steps have already been taken to make sure that the probationary period referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) is, in essence, a probationary period and not a lifetime of service in an unestablished capacity. Having said that, and having thanked the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend for this important declaration and concession, I must say that I am sorry that the Chancellor is now being so illogical as to say, having decided that a thing was evil and wrong and should not be countenanced, "I am sorry; I cannot give any redress whatever to the people who have suffered under that error for the best part of 40 or 50 years."
I appreciate the argument that we cannot remedy all these defects at the same time, and I quite understand the clamour that would be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite if increased taxation was necessary in order to do this. They would say that it was "reckless expenditure" as the Leader of the Opposition so pertinently and so often tries to state to the country.

Colonel Dower: I heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "pertinently." Is that what he meant?

Mr. Williams: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member has drawn my attention to that error. Of course, I meant "impertinently."
6.0 p.m.
I wish to make an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to give further consideration to this matter. Personally, I feel that £2,500,000 at present, and £7

million or £8 million in the ultimate in the next 15 years, is not too great a price to pay for removing something which has been a sore in the body politic of the Civil Service for a couple of generations, and I do not think the people of this country would think that an injustice had been done to any other workers in other industries, socialised or otherwise, if he took the decision, as I think he ought to, to do the right thing by loyal, faithful members of his own staff, servants of the Crown and of his own Department.
I shall not vote against him on it, but neither shall I vote for him on this occasion. I feel sure that there is an opportunity here for my right hon. and learned Friend to consider between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, a way in which he could meet what seems to be the general view of the House in this matter.

Mr. Hollis: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) wishes to get a majority of the House in support of the arguments which he has been advancing or not, but, if he was wooing us, he certainly wooed us in a rather peculiar manner. I do not think it necessary to delay the House by dealing at length with the contest between the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I was on the Standing Committee and on the other hand I was quite unaware of the existence of the letter which the hon. Member quoted until this moment, but, so far as the portion of the letter which the hon. Member read out is concerned, it seemed to me a characteristically accurate account by my hon. Friend of what took place in Committee, and why complaint has been made against my hon. Friend I cannot imagine.
On the general merits of the question, this matter has been thoroughly threshed out both this afternoon and in the Committee upstairs, and I need not delay the House by going into the merits again. Indeed, there is less necessity to do so because there has been no dispute in any quarter of the House on the merits of the question. I would merely urge three considerations which weigh with me very much.
The first is that the concession which the Government are offering means practically nothing, and for this reason. The


Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have told us that it is their intention radically to revise the whole system of unestablished service, and that in future it would only be used in a very narrow sense for people undergoing a merely probationary period. They are to get rid of what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth considered "this vile thing, this bad thing," which has existed in the past. They may well deserve commendation for that, and I think they do, and I am not going to quarrel with it. But that means that the concession is nothing at all, because there will not therefore be these unestablished people in the future and it makes one ask why it should be put into the Bill; in fact, it would be much better if it were not in the Bill. If we cannot win our point, it is better not to have the Government's point in the Bill at all. It will simply have the effect of creating this sense of rank injustice and continuing it in the future.
The second point is a basic point, and it is that no attempt whatever has been made, either by the Financial Secretary upstairs or by the Chancellor today, to pretend that there is any argument whatever about the justice of this claim. If there had been a difference of opinion on whether it was just, that would be a different situation, but that is not the situation and that case goes entirely by default. It has been admitted by both the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary that all these suggestions are in themselves desirable suggestions. This is an absolutely just demand, and, that being so, we have before us a different proposition than if we were merely asking for something which was desirable.
We are asking for a matter of absolute justice. There can only be one answer in refusing a demand for absolute justice, and that is that it is impossible. No other justification should be given. The only case which the Government have put forward has rested entirely on the matter of cost. That is not one to which we have any right to be indifferent, but we have a right to say that, if there are certain things clamouring to be done and one is a matter of absolute justice while the others are merely desirable concessions, the absolute justice should be granted first, even if that answer means postponing other things until later. That

appears to me to be an unanswerable argument.
The third point is that there has been a certain amount of talk, both in the Committee upstairs and in this Debate today, about the records of parties and Governments in the past and why these things were not done before. I make no complaint about that at all. Hon. Members who recollect the discussion in the Committee upstairs will remember the suggestion that, if we get the records of the parties, all the brickbats are by no means on one side. I shall not go into that, because I do want to approach this matter in a non-partisan spirit. I want hon. Members to approach it in the same spirit in order to see what is the correct conclusion to be drawn from these facts concerning this problem which has caused so much anguish in the past. When my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was speaking about what happened in 1935, the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), if I heard him aright, and I am not going to say anything to his discredit——

Mr. Ernest Davies: I have not spoken this afternoon.

Mr. Hollis: Well, one hon. Member in that part of the House said that it would have been much easier if it had been done in 1935. It was quite a proper observation and I am not complaining about it. What I would ask the hon. Member who made that interruption to do is to meditate on what is the true lesson to be drawn from that fact. It is surely that every year that this reform is delayed, it becomes more difficult to do. It is true that it would have been easier to have done it in 1935 than it is today, and it is a pity it was not done in 1935. Nevertheless, it is equally true that it will be much more difficult to do it in 1960 or some other time in future with every year that passes, because the additional sense of grievance which will grow will make the problem still more difficult.
Therefore, for those three reasons, I beg the House and the Chancellor very seriously to consider accepting the verdict given on a non-party basis by the Standing Committee upstairs.

Mr. Norman Smith: I think it is about time that some-


body on this side of the House spoke in a quite different strain from that of the speeches to which we have been listening. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has referred to absolute justice. What, particularly, are we concerned about in this Amendment? We are concerned chiefly with giving a certain section of the population rather more of the national cake than they expected to have. I think that is a perfectly fair statement. If this superannuation is increased, as was proposed and decided in the Committee upstairs, somebody will get an additional share of the national cake over and above what they expected to receive.
It is true that the beneficiaries of this transaction will be certain members of the Civil Service, who in the past have been unestablished and who have found themselves without the emoluments of their established brethren. It is my experience, and probably the experience of every hon. Member in recent weeks, that these people have constituted themselves a pressure group. I, like other hon. Members, have received the attentions of this pressure group. Even if I make a vote-losing speech, I do not care; I think something wants saying at this stage. I do not propose in future to say "Yes" to every pressure group, even if their case does involve what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has just called "absolute justice."
The assumption in the minds of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and in the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)—whom I have always regarded as representing the more responsible and more respectable element in the party opposite—is that, if a given pressure group has got a case which on its merits stands up, then the Government must necessarily give in to that pressure group on the merits of its case. That assumption is fantastic. It is not fair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, after all, has got his job to do as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to administer a financial system which every hon. Member with one exception—the hon. Member for South Nottingham—accepts.
Seeing that that system is accepted, and that my right hon. and learned Friend is supposed to balance his Budget, why

should he have to give in to a pressure group merely because that pressure group happens to have an inherently good case? It is no use considering this subject in a vacuum and dissociating this subject from all the other topics that crowd in on this House in an era like the present. This Labour Government took office in 1945 in a difficult epoch, and because they are a Labour Government, they are expected to do the right thing by everybody, irrespective of the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself.
From now until the General Election I am going to say to all pressure groups, "I think you have a good case—or you have not, as the case may be—but if you want to have a concession made to you, you must show me how I can put it up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that his course will be easy and so that nobody else will be deprived." Some hon. Members have actually had the effrontery to suggest that this concession should be paid for by docking somebody else, by giving somebody the sack, or something of that sort.
I believe that these civil servants have a good case, but I refuse to vote against this Government who are, though belatedly, arranging that this evil shall not recur. I defend my right hon. and learned Friend; I hope he will stand firm and challenge those who oppose either to abstain from voting or to vote against the Government, to show where the money is to come from under the existing orthodox and fantastic financial system.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respect the courage of the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith) in his stern resistance to what he describes as "pressure groups." I take it that by "pressure groups" he means those expressions of public opinion with which he happens to disagree. But I was a little surprised when he told the House that it made no difference whatever to his resistance to those pressure groups if their case happened to be inherently a good one. That is a very remarkable proposition, because it suggests that the hon. Member is not prepared to back an inherently good case if it happens to be put to him rather vocally and by numbers of his constituents or of other people. I disagree with that attitude.
Surely, it is for this House to take into account public opinion in the matter, and to come to the right decision upon the merits. Public opinion on the matter is a very real and relevant consideration. The public in this country have a very considerable inherent sense of justice, and if there is a strong expression of public opinion on a matter of this sort it is, at any rate, some evidence which this House should weigh in coming to a conclusion whether or not the case is, in the words of the hon. Member for South Nottingham, "inherently a good one."
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendments, I did not have the privilege of serving upon the Standing Committee, but I think I can claim that I represent in this House at least as many civil servants as any other hon. Member. There is no doubt at all that the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in putting down these Amendments has aroused a very considerable degree of indignation. To any hon. Member who is accustomed to weighing the reactions and to weighing the genuineness of representations made to him, there can be little doubt that there is a very great deal of feeling aroused on this matter. It seemed to me that in moving these Amendments the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear fully to appreciate that in so doing he was outraging the sense of justice of a considerable section of the community.
As I understood them, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were two. First of all there was the question of cost, which went immediately from £1 million to £2 million. He did not tell the House whether that was a gross or net figure. With the present high rate of direct taxation, there may be a substantial difference between the two, and when the Financial Secretary winds up the House should be told whether this is a gross or net figure. The argument of public economy is one which it is absolutely right in the present situation for the House to consider, and did it come from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who in other respects was sedulously practising public economy, it would, perhaps, have even more compelling weight.
6.15 p.m.
But the figure involved is a sufficiently small one when compared with the total

Budget of £3,200 million not to amount to an insuperable obstacle if there is—again quoting the hon. Member for South Nottingham—"an inherently good case." The Chancellor is a better mathematician than I am—that is a very limited compliment—and can work out what percentage a sum of between £1 million and £2 million is of £3,200 million. In any case, it is very small. There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has said, that other claims upon the Exchequer at this time are less backed by elementary justice, and, therefore, should give place to this. I should be out of Order if I were to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman any suggestions, but he might perhaps cast his eye on the Central Office of Information.
The question that really arises is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do by these Amendments. As I understand it, it is a compromise—perhaps very characteristic of the warm geniality for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is famous—by which he accepts the principle and then proceeds to emasculate, to attenuate and to procrastinate the substance of the matter. He accepts the principle as being right. He has not said at that Box, and no one has stood there to say, that the principle that unestablished service prior to established service should rank for full pension is wrong. No hon. Member in the course of an hour and a half has said that, and by this very Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting on record that in the view of the Government the principle is right.
Having done that, in the same breath metaphorically, and literally in the same Amendment, he proceeds so to arrange matters that no person shall benefit from these principles for the space of 10 years. That is a ludicrous position with which to confront the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has said, it would be more intellectually honest not to put the principle into the Bill at all; it would be intellectually more honest to leave the whole matter open. To put the principle into the Bill and then to refuse to operate it is, in the opinion of many people affected and who have spoken to me, to add insult to injury. Surely, the issue is quite simple. In terms of contemporary finance, if this is the right thing to do it is quite absurd to say that from £1 million to £2 million,


be it gross or net is too much. If it be the right thing to do, then this country, even under Socialist finance, has not reached the stage at which it cannot afford it.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) chided my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) and said he was not wooing hon. Members on the other side towards the case that we have espoused. But I do not think some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite have been designed to woo the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, after all, holds the key to this situation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The House holds the key.

Mr. Houghton: I agree at once that the House holds the key to the situation, but the Chancellor has a very special responsibility to this House as custodian of the nation's finances.
With regard to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith), I submit that civil servants are the servants of this House. We are the employers of civil servants and when civil servants exercise their due right of putting their grievances before hon. Members, it is a little unkind to suggest that they are a pressure group. They must be distinguished from pressure groups as we understand them, because this is the final court of appeal for the grievances of the servants of this House. They have no right to take a matter of this kind to any arbitration tribunal, and it so happens that, on matters of superannuation, legislation is necessary before any changes can be made in their conditions. In that respect they are in a very different position from the employees of private enterprise and, indeed, in a different position from the servants of socialised industries. I hope no hon. Members on either side of the House will feel prejudiced against the case that has been put to them because they have been troubled by individual civil servants who have written to them recently.
I want to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we all appreciate that there is a great deal of good in this Bill. There are welcome reforms, long overdue, which will cause a great deal of satisfaction to the Civil Service, but it

is too good a Bill to leave unremedied a widespread feeling of injustice among civil servants who are suffering from the mistakes of Governments in the past in regard to the discount of their unestablished service for pension purposes.
If, for a moment or two, I may examine what the Chancellor proposes to do, I hope to submit to him some of the features of his Amendment which are bound in the future to cause difficulty, a sense of unfairness and a sense of injustice. The Amendment proposes to concede some improvement in the case of future entrants without going back to put things right for those who are already established. That is exactly what the Government did in 1935, and they employed a precisely similar device; because in 1935, civil servants established after the passing of the 1935 Act were allowed to reckon half their unestablished service from the date of the passing of that Act.
In 1949, under the Bill before the House, the Chancellor proposes that those established after the passing of this Bill shall be allowed to reckon in full their unestablished service from the date of the passing of the Bill. That is a device, employed in 1949, which was employed in 1935 when bringing about a change in the reckoning of unestablished service for pension. As one hon. Member has already said, the device employed in 1935 was not accepted by the Civil Service and agitation for a remedy commenced almost immediately after the Act was passed. I prophesy that trouble lies before the House on this question for precisely the same reasons.
After the passing of the 1935 Act, the Civil Service made it clear that those proposals were not to be taken as implying any abandonment of the general principle that unestablished service should be reckoned in full for existing personnel. A short while after the passing of the 1935 Act an all-party committee was formed in the House, composed of Members of all sides, to work for the amendment of the 1935 Act with a view to counting the whole of unestablished service for pension. That all-party committee made periodical approaches to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the outbreak of the war that activity ceased and representations which were being made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were


held in abeyance. It was not until three years ago this month that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) announced:
It is my view that these men had a raw deal in the past, and it is the duty of this new Parliament and new Government to help them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 992.]
That was the beginning of the remedy which was later incorporated in the 1946 Act.
May I contrast the position of an entrant established after the passing of this Bill with that of persons who have been established quite recently? A person established after the passing of this Bill will, under certain conditions, count one-half of his military service during the war of 1939–45, one-half of his temporary service up to the date of the passing of the Bill and his full unestablished service thereafter. An entrant who had been established before the passing of the Bill counted no part of his unestablished service in full; he counted only one-half. We might find this difference between two persons: one established in 1948, after 10 years' combined war service and temporary service, would count one-half, that is five years, whereas a man established in 1951, after the same period of combined service of 10 years, will count one-half up to the passing of the Bill and in full thereafter—a total of six years. Thus, between two men with precisely the same length of unestablished service and with only two years or so dividing their establishment in the Civil Service, there will be a difference of one year in their reckonable service for pension.
Turning to the older entrants who were established some years ago, in between the two wars, they were not allowed to count for pension purposes any part of their military service between 1914–1918 and many of them were not allowed to count any part of their earlier unestablished service. We find that a man who entered as a temporary clerk in 1920, say at 30 years of age, and who was later established in, say, 1934, when he was 44, has put in 14 years of non-pensionable service. Under the 1946 Act he is allowed to count one-half of that service. If he retires at 65 he will have served 35 years, but only 28 years of that will count for pension. For a clerical officer retiring

on, say, a salary of £450, that deprivation of seven years unestablished service, which may not count for pension, will make a difference to his superannuation of about £40 a year. Under this Bill it will mean a smaller pension to his widow if he dies in the meantime. It may make a difference of possibly £13 to £14 a year on a small pension of between £50 and £60 a year which his widow might receive under this Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Those are anomalies which the Civil Service will examine with close attention and which will undoubtedly make many members of the Service feel more acutely the deprivation of the past now that some concession is to be made for unestablished service in the future. I do hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will carefully consider the appeals and representations which have been made to him from all parts of the House. This is a question of justice to the servants of the Crown, and a special responsibility rests on the House to see justice is done.
As hon. Members have mentioned, my right hon. and learned Friend did not seek to defend what has happened in the past on the merits of the case, but now refers to the considerable cost which the full remedy would entail. I suggest respectfully to him that if the cost of this concession were laid upon the Votes of the several Departments, savings could and should be made in other directions to meet the additional charge. I am sure that if he made a strong appeal to Departments to achieve that purpose the response would be complete, and that he would have no worries on the score of cost. I hope that, in all the circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider his previous decision, and accede to the wishes which have been so earnestly expressed from all sides of the House.

Mr. Peake: There is nothing very new or fresh which can be said about this matter. I do not think that, in the 20 years I have been in the House, I can recall such a unanimous desire for the Chancellor to meet the wishes of Members in all quarters of the House. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must begin to have some doubts as to the rectitude of the position he has adopted when he finds that his only supporter is the hon. Member for South


Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith). Surely, if nothing else can shake the Chancellor that fact ought to have some influence with him. I think Members in all parts of the House have some legitimate sense of grievance against the Government for the way in which this matter has been handled. The procedure adopted by the Government has, in fact, invited hon. Members to take up matters of this kind and to introduce Amendments of the character of the one which was introduced into this Clause in the Standing Committee. The Government might perfectly well and perfectly reasonably have said, "This Bill represents an agreement reached between the official and staff sides of the National Whitley Council. As it represents an agreement, we for our part, as a Government, intend to stand firm on the agreement, and we are not prepared to go beyond or alter that agreement in any way." That would have been a perfectly reasonable attitude for the Government to have taken up. In pursuit of such a line they could then have drawn the Financial Resolution which governs the Bill in such a way as to have all Amendments out of Order that were designed to increase the benefits to be drawn by any class of civil servants. Had the Government followed that policy, all of us would have known exactly where we stood.
The Government, however, have not done that. At no time during the discussion of this Bill in Standing Committee or on Report have the Government taken a rigid stand upon agreement reached between the Civil Service unions on the one hand and the representatives of the official side on the other. In fact, about an hour and a quarter ago, when we were looking at Clause 32, which provides that where civil servants retire with less than 20 years' service on account of ill-health they shall receive pension as if they have had 20 years' service, the Government made a concession today which goes beyond the agreement reached between the two sides of the Whitley Council. They have made that Amendment apply not only to those who retire from the Civil Service after the passage of this Bill, but to people who are already upon superannuation, to persons who have already retired from the Service. The Government, by their own action, have shown that they do not stand pat upon

the agreement, and that they are prepared to make concessions which go beyond the terms of the agreement reached.
When we come to compare what has been done under Clause 32 with what the Chancellor now proposes should be done, we see a most extraordinary contrast, because there is an additional benefit for civil servants upon superannuation, which is to apply to those who have already retired. Here we have an additional benefit, also affecting superannuation, but it is going to apply only to those who become established civil servants after the passage of this Bill. That is to say, in the average case, what the Chancellor now proposes in regard to this class will not and cannot confer benefits upon members of the Civil Service until 30 or 40 years hence. That. I think, shows that there is no principle involved here of any sort or kind.
In the Standing Committee we had speeches from every Labour Member who contributed to the Debates, in favour of the proposal which stands in the Bill as it has come back to us from the Standing Committee. I should like to quote one sentence—because I think it is a precise statement of the facts—from a speech made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns). He said:
It is just as well that the Financial Secretary should know that this is not merely a question of a pressure group or any special interest but that there is a genuine and unanimous desire on the part of the Committee that something should be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 10th May, 1949; c. 164.]
That is a precise description of the feeling in the Standing Committee.
The one and only objection raised to this proposal is upon the score of its cost. At different stages we have been given different figures as to what this proposal would cost. When it was first raised in Standing Committee we were told that the immediate cost of this proposal, which is that unestablished service rendered after the year 1919 should rank in full for superannuation—we were told that the initial figure for the first year would be £2 million. Later on, in the Standing Committee the initial figure was said to be £1,750,000. Today the Chancellor tells us that the initial cost will be somewhere between


£1 million and £2 million. Presumably his guess now is that it would cost £1,500,000. As regards the ultimate cost, in Standing Committee we were told it would be £7 million in 15 years' time, and today the figure has come down to somewhere between £5 million and £7 million in 15 years' time. So the longer we discuss the matter the lower the cost seems to get. Therefore, there seems to be a great deal to be said for continuing this discussion.
Let us assume that the cost is of the order of £1,500,000 at the outset, growing to £5 million in 15 years' time. Of course, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes is going to cost the Exchequer nothing at all; it cannot cost it a single penny for, at any rate, 11 or 12 years, and it will not really begin to cost anything at all for 30 or 40 years. Let us assume that the Chancellor is seriously frightened at the idea of adding £1 million or £1,500,000 to expenditure at the present time. I would only draw his attention to the fact that in the case of the Police Force, the Home Secretary announced the other day proposals which would cost between £3 and £4 million a year at the outset and increase as time went on. The Chancellor clearly is not determined to resist all demands for increases if he thinks they are justified, and this case, as we all know, is justified. There has been no suggestion of any argument against the merits of the case; the argument is based entirely upon the cost.
In Standing Committee we said that unestablished service should count in full rather than at any time after 1919. The Chancellor's proposal now is that unestablished service shall count only if it was rendered after 1949. If the Chancellor is really frightened on the score of cost, and he thinks that £1 million or £1,500,000 is more than he can possibly afford to add to expenditure at the present time, I should have thought he might have come forward with some proposal to choose some intermediate date between 1919 and 1949. There is a whole generation separating 1919 entrants from entrants in 1949. Let it be observed that the Chancellor's proposal of counting unestablished service rendered only after 1949 does have this particularly unfair effect. During the war from 1939 to 1945, all establishments to the Civil Service

came to an end. No one was established during those years. Many of those who would normally have become established in 1939, 1940 or 1941 were precluded by war-time conditions from gaining establishment when they entered the Civil Service. It therefore seems that the Chancellor's proposal now is designed deliberately to prevent those people from securing any benefit from this new proposal.
What has happened? Many of these unestablished civil servants who were serving all through the war years have been selected for permanent establishment, and during the years 1945 to 1948 or 1949 very large numbers of excellent civil servants have been put on full establishment. These persons, by what the Chancellor proposes, are being deliberately prohibited from obtaining any benefit whatever from this proposal. I suggest to the Chancellor that, even if he is frightened at the idea of adding £1,250,000 or £1,500,000 at the outset, to £5 million in 15 years, it is only expedient to meet the cases of these people by choosing some intermediate date which would result in the cost being rather less and to do justice to those who rendered to the country excellent service during the war years. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has said—and I know how strongly he is in favour of this proposal, which he proposed himself during the Debate in 1946——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me, let me say that, having experienced during the 1930's some of the miseries to which our folk were subjected by the absence of any provision then, I have listened with a growing feeling of nausea to the remarks which have characterised many of the speeches today.

Mr. Peake: I hardly think that the observations of the hon. Gentleman are in keeping with the tone of the Debate this afternoon, and I do not think they merit any reply. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to accede to the appeals which have been made to him from all quarters of the House.

6.45 p.m.

Sir S. Capps: With the permission of the House perhaps I may be allowed to


reply to this Debate because I have been brought into a number of speeches and my arguments have been mentioned. I am a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman complain that he was not gagged at an earlier stage in this Bill. I think it is the first time that I have ever heard a representative of the Opposition get up and suggest to the Government they they might have put down a Financial Resolution which would have resulted in no amendment being possible at all. We did not think that a reasonable thing to do. Despite the desires of the right hon. Gentleman, we refrained from taking such an action. We felt it reasonable, in a matter of this importance, for views to be expressed in the House, but that did not mean that we did not reserve to ourselves naturally as a Government the position as to what we thought we were right to express to the House as regards expenditure which was permissible for certain purposes.
Let me get two things clear. The first is the effect of the Amendment which I am moving, about which there seems to be some doubt. The Amendment will have immediate effect as regards every unestablished person in the Civil Service. As from the date of the passing of the Bill, instead of two years counting as one, two years will count for two, and in reckoning up their pensions, whenever they happen to come to be paid, they will get the benefit of that extra period of time. It is not right to say that 10 years' established service has to be served before a pension is payable. Ten years which will reckon for pension has to be served.
That is to say, we can count unestablished service as well as established service which has accrued before a pension becomes payable to an established person. Therefore we say: A person has 14 years' service before this, seven years of which count towards pension and subsequently he does three years after this which will make up the ten years that are necessary. I only put that in to correct what the right hon. Gentleman put forward. This will be an immediate benefit not merely for new entrants but for everyone not up to this stage established in the Civil Service.
A great deal has been said about justice and injustice. This is not a question of justice or injustice at all. The mere justice of the situation is that these people enter upon a service on certain conditions which have been carried out. It may be said

that the conditions ought to have been better. Anyone can say that with regard to the miners, the railwaymen, or anyone else. But no one suggests that we should legislate retrospectively to alter the condition under which they were then serving. It is a very unusual situation to go back retrospectively and alter conditions of service of a large class of persons.
Therefore, it is not really a question of justice or injustice, but a question of whether it is right and expedient to go back and, at the expense of the community, alter the conditions of the service which ruled and under which the service was given of a certain class of people. It has been said that I have agreed that the conditions under which the service was then given was not as good as they should have been. Certainly I agree with that. But that applies to a host of other people in the country as well.
It is not only these people who were serving during that period under conditions which were not as good as they should have been. We must remember that if we do something special for these people others may come along and ask, "What about us?" What about, for instance, the servants of the National Coal Board, to whom exactly the same provisions have been applied as regards their unpensionable period of service before they came under the Coal Board; that is to say, they are to be allowed half the period of time. If this is done for civil servants, may it not well be suggested that it should be done for 75,000 people under the Coal Board scheme? What about the local government staff who under the 1937 Act were put on a similar basis to civil servants? That is to say, half their period of service, unestablished or without a pension scheme, was to be counted.
This is a matter which cannot be settled entirely in isolation. If we are to be retrospective with legislation as regards conditions of service we must bear in mind the fact that there are other people who will come along and say: "We are just as entitled to an extra share of the national wealth as this particular body of persons." Therein lies my great difficulty. Obviously, I should like, as we should all like—it is almost too simple to say "Yes" to all these quite reasonable demands of people who say that the conditions under which they served in the


past were not as good as they ought to have been—we should all like to say, "By all means let us put them right. Let us now give you compensation for those bad conditions in the past." But when it comes to paying the Bill we do not all like it, and that is just the difference.
Hon. Gentlemen who press me today say, "Look how just. Why not do it? You are only trebling the cost of the Bill. That is all that we are asking you to do. You estimated that the Bill would cost £3¼ million. We are only asking you to raise it to £10¾ million now. How reasonable! Why not do it?" Well, I should like to do it very much indeed, but I do not think that my responsibility as Chancellor of the Exchequer permits me to do it. I have to look at this matter in the setting of the people who have got to pay the money as well as the people who have to receive the money, and of all the other competitive requests that may be made.
When we got out this Bill, in agreement very largely with the Civil Service, we came to the conclusion that we were justified in spending a certain amount of money on a superannuation scheme, although there were financial difficulties and stringencies, and so on. Having come to that conclusion we framed a scheme which would come within that ambit.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do want to be clear upon the question of the cost of the Bill and the cost of this proposal. Just now the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were trebling the cost of the Bill, and that the cost of the Bill as introduced would have been £3¾ million.

Sir S. Cripps: Three and a quarter million increased to £10¾ million.

Mr. Peake: The Financial Memorandum on the back of the Bill as originally printed says:
The total cost of Part III of the Bill is … unlikely to exceed £500,000 in the first year and will diminish thereafter. Parts I and II … will result in a temporary increase in administrative costs of about £20,000 a year.
I cannot square these figures on the back of the Bill, which total just over half a million, with the figure of £3¼ million

which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given.

Sir S. Cripps: I do not know which document the right hon. Gentleman has got, but at the bottom of page iii the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
Thereafter payments will exceed receipts till ultimately, after twenty years, the net cost of these pensions may reach a peak of £3.25 million a year.

Mr. Peake: After 20 years.

Sir S. Cripps: Well, this other figure is after 15 years; it creeps up to £7 million, so it is, roughly speaking, a comparable period. There is nothing very much in it. What we have to try to do is by this Amendment to establish a system which will avoid the possibility of this kind of difficulty arising in the future. We have made that applicable to everybody who has unestablished service.
Some hon. Members have suggested, certainly the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), that it is much better not to do this at all. Well, I do ask him to think again about that. It will not make the contrast any worse than it is today. It will obviously make the contrast better than it is today. If, as we all agree, this is an undesirable incident of employment by the State, surely getting rid of it is a benefit. I think that every sensible hon. Member would agree with that proposition.
I must say quite definitely that, having given this the very deepest consideration that I can, with every possible desire to help that very great body of persons, the Civil Service of this country, I regret that it is not possible to add this new burden to the burden that we are already undertaking for this purpose. I must also point out that in matters of this kind, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take the responsibility of telling the House fairly and fully what he considers to be the capacity for further payment of this kind, and once having made up his mind that nothing further should be charged on this account he would be gravely neglecting his duty if, for the sake of popularity or appeasement, he were to give way to demands of this kind.

Mr. Hale: Would my right hon. and learned Friend deal with one point, which I think important, which he mentioned in his earlier speech at the opening


of this discussion. It is certainly not completely understood by myself, and not, I imagine, by many hon. Members who were not Members of the Standing Committee. He made what I thought a very important statement indeed when he said that it was his intention that unestablished service should gradually become a thing of the past. I thought that he was going rather to abolish that, so that most civil servants in future would be established. If the Chancellor could give us any elaboration of that I should be grateful.

Sir S. Cripps: The figures were given in Committee, and I think they were mentioned a little earlier today. Last year 86,000 civil servants in all were established, and the objective is—and of course this Amendment will encourage the objective, because directly upon the passing of this Bill unestablished service will equally count for pension, and there will be no distinction between the two——

Mr. Hale: If the man becomes established.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes.

Mr. Hale: But not otherwise.

Sir S. Cripps: But not otherwise. The purpose, as we have stated, is to use unestablishment only as a stage, and not as a permanent method of employing people for the Civil Service.

Mr. H. Wallace: Would the Chancellor answer the two points I raised affecting the two smaller grades, whether they could be settled departmentally?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter which can be discussed, but it has no relevance to this Amendment.

Mr. Solley: I am sorry to have to detain the House at this late stage, but I did attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before the Chancellor rose to reply to the Debate. I am intervening because I have been asked by civil servants in my constituency to support the Clause as it stands and to oppose the Amendment which the Government have now moved. A few weeks ago I received a letter from the Customs staff at Tilbury Docks, in which they say:
Sir,
We the undermentioned members of His Majesty's Customs Staff, Tilbury Docks would

be grateful for your support in the House when the Civil Service Superannuation Bill Amendments are discussed. The Joint Committee of the Civil Service have sent you a copy of the proposed three Amendments. We have on our staff men with 28 years' unestablished service who are now established, but only half of this service counts for superannuation purposes. Knowing your record we know your support is a certainty.
That was written on 14th March before my expulsion from the Labour Party.
7.0 p.m.
It is quite obvious from that, from conversations I have had with civil servants in my constituency and from what has been said on both sides of the House that there is deep feeling on this matter, and if this Amendment is accepted, grave injustice will be done to a fine body of public servants. As I understood the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his fundamental opposition to the Clause as it now stands is that it will cost a sum of money which he cannot at this moment afford for this purpose. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith) put it in rather a different way when he called upon his right hon. and learned Friend not to give way to pressure groups. Incidentally, I regard it as an impertinence to call constituents of mine, who approached me constitutionally and democratically for my support, members of a pressure group.

Mr. Norman Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman believe it an impertinence to apply the term "pressure group" to people when, in the case of my constituency, I had seven letters from different persons all couched in identical language?

Mr. Solley: I have no doubt that the way Nottingham approaches its M.P. is different from the way Thurrock approaches its M.P. The hon. Member requested the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to give way to pressure groups. In the case of one particular pressure group, I have no doubt there would have been no difficulty in allocating this money. I refer, of course, to the pressure group of the Foreign Office.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said that he hoped hon. Members on the Government side of the House would go into the Lobby to support the Conservative Party against the Government. The reason we have this


Clause at all is that the Tory Government in 1935 made it impossible to do justice to civil servants. I would regard it as sheer hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues to challenge the Government on this matter, because for many years they had it within their power to put right that which they are now asking the Labour Government to put right. It is for that reason, although I am in opposition to the Government Amendment, that I will not share in the hypocrisy of the Tories, and I will not

go into their Lobby. My opposition is not the same as the Tory opposition, but is based on what I conceive to be a Socialist point of view. This Clause as it now stands remedies an injustice, and the Amendment would restore that injustice. In those difficult circumstances, I shall abstain from voting.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 237.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[7.5 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Glyn, Sir R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bowen, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Hutchison Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butler, Rt. Hn R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Byers, Frank
Langford-Holt, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Challen, C.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Teeling, William


Davidson, Viscountess
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Davits, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


De la Bère, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Col A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
William, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Metlor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Nicholson, G.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Colonel Wheatley.


George, Maj Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bottomley, A. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Barstow, P. G.
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.


Albu, A. H.
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benson, G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Alpass, J. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Attewell, H. C.
Binns, J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Blackburn, A. R.
Callaghan, James


Bacon, Miss A.
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Balfour, A.
Boardman, H.
Cluse, W. S.




Cobb, F. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham N.)
Rhodes, H.


Collindridge, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Collins, V. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Royle, C.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Scollan, T.


Daggar, G.
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Daines, P.
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lang, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras S. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Diamond, J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Uplon)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Donovan, T.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lyne, A. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McAdam, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. (Lambeth)


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stubbs, A. E.


Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Swingler, S.


Fernyhough, E.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Timmons, J.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon George
Titterington, M. F.


Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.
Tolley, L.


Goodrich, H. E.
Messer, F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mm. L.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.
Walker, G. H.


Grenfelt, D. R.
Morley, R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Watkins, T. E.


Grierson, E.
Nally, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Naylor, T. E.
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
West, D. G.


Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh E.)


Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire N. E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt Hon W.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.
Orbach, M.
Wigg, George


Hardman, D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Harrison, J.
Parker, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Haworth, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hicks, G.
Pearson, A.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Woods, G. S.


Horabin, T. L.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wyatt, W.


Hubbard, T.
Price, M. Philips
Yates, V. F.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Proctor W. T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pryde, D. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.



Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, J.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 13, leave out "This section," and insert "The preceding subsection."

In line 15, at end, insert:
(3) Section three of the Superannuation Act, 1935, shall have effect, in relation to any service in an unestablished capacity rendered after the passing of this Act as if in subsection (1) thereof the words 'as to one half of the period thereof,' were omitted."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 43.—(COMPUTATION OF SERVICE AND REDUCTION OF RETIRING AGE IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN PRISON AND AND OTHER EMPLOYMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 39, line 15, leave out "retiring age," and insert "age on retirement."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 51.—(APPLICATION TO CASES FALLING WITHIN THE SUPERANNUATION (VARIOUS SERVICES) ACT, 1938.)

Amendment made: In page 43, line 17, leave out from "and," to the first "the," in line 18.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 57.—(POWER TO IGNORE BREAKS IN DEPENDENCE.)

Amendments made: In page 46, line 5, leave out "was," and insert "is."

In line 6, leave out "would," and insert "will."

In line 19, leave out from "Acts," to the second "to."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause 61.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 47, line 25, leave out "this Act or."

In line 26, leave out "1834 to 1946."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 47, line 35, at the end, to insert:
'presumptively eligible for a life pension,' in relation to a person, means nominated under Part II of this Act after his period of childhood and full-time education or under a nomination which states that he is permanently incapacitated.
This Amendment inserts a definition for this class of pensioner. A definition was previously provided for them in Clause 17, but we there delete it. We want to put it in here slightly amplified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 48, line 26, to leave out "1834 to 1946."
Subsection (1) of the Clause, without the Amendment, defines the Superannuation Act as "1834 to 1946," and the present Bill. The reference to the Superannuation Acts so defined is not required in the context of the proviso.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 44, at end, insert:
and references to a person by whom another person has been adopted shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF PARTS I AND II IN RELATION TO PERSONS TO WHOM SECTIONS 35 AND 36 APPLY.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 51, line 35, to leave out paragraph 1, and to insert:

1. Where any person to whom section thirty-five of this Act applies ceases to be a civil servant after making periodical contributions under section seven or section twenty of this Act, the period in respect of which contributions may be returned to him by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section eight or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty-one of this Act respectively shall be reduced by the number of years of reckonable service which are taken into account under subsection (3) of the said section thirty-five or would be so taken into account but for the provisions of subsection (4) of section thirty-six of this Act.
2. For the purpose of computing any contribution to be made under section nine or section twenty-two of this Act in respect of a person to whom section thirty-five of this Act applies there shall be taken into account (notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) of the said section nine or subsection (5) of the said section twenty-two) any year of reckonable service which is taken into account for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section thirty-five or which would be so taken into account but for the provisions of subsection (4) of section thirty-six of this Act.
This Amendment and the next make consequential adjustments in the provisions dealing with persons to whom Clauses 35 and 36 apply and are made necessary by the Amendments which we have made to Clauses 8 and 21, and to Clause 36 earlier this afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 52, line 15, at end, insert:
Provided that the years added by virtue of this paragraph together with the years taken into account by virtue of paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall not exceed five in all.

In line 23, at end, insert:
Provided that the years added by virtue of this paragraph together with the years taken into account by virtue of paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall not exceed five in all.

In page 53, line 10, leave out from beginning, to "that," and insert:
construed as reference to the annual rate of."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I should not like the Bill to pass without thanking the Financial Secretary for the new Clause which he moved earlier. I am sorry that I was not in my place to thank him then, but I did not appreciate


that it would be taken on the recommittal of the Bill. I want to raise a small point about line 5, which says:
if and so far as that service took place after the date on which he was declared successful in a competitive examination.
I understand that in 1914 and 1915 there was no declaration of success and the first intimation to the individual who was fortunate enough to survive the war, was his actual appointment to the Service. I do not believe that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to sidestep this issue by using this wording to avoid the point which he has otherwise covered in the Clause. Perhaps he will be good enough to look at this later and give me that reassurance.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 7, page 8, line 21, and in Clause 13, page 14, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Woodburn.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(RIGHT TO AND NATURE OF LEGAL ADVICE.)

7.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end, to insert:
5 In the case of a person who has been a member of the forces at any time after the passing of this Act, the last foregoing subsection shall apply so as to authorise the giving of advice on matters arising in the course of his service furth of Scotland as it applies in the case of a person who is a member of the forces.
A member of the Forces may at the time of his discharge still be involved in some legal question which has arisen overseas in the course of his service. It is reasonable that legal advice should be available in such cases just as if the ex-Service man were still a member of the Forces, and the Amendment so provides.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(RULES OF COURT.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 14, line 11, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 16, and to insert:
(3) The Court may, by act of adjournal or act of sederunt, as the case may be, restrict to such proportion of the fees for the time being applicable as may be provided therein the fees to be paid to auditors of court, messengers-at-arms, sheriff officers and shorthand writers in any case where such fees are payable in the first instance by or on behalf of a person receiving legal aid:
Provided that the imposition of any restriction under this subsection shall not affect the sums recoverable by virtue of an award of expenses in favour of a person who has received legal aid, or of an agreement as to expenses in favour of such a person which provides for taxation.
(4) The Court may, by act of adjournal or act of sederunt, as the case may be, make provision for the taxation by the Auditor of the Court of Session or the auditor of the sheriff court of accounts of expenses incurred in connection with the giving of legal aid and with respect to the remuneration to be paid to auditors in respect of the taxation of such accounts.
This Amendment falls into three parts. In the first place we provide that the court may either by act of adjournal or act of sederunt restrict to a proportion which they think requisite the fees normally payable to auditors of court, messengers-at-arms, sheriff officers and shorthand writers. The reason for this is that we feel that when counsel and solicitors are giving their services on a restricted fee basis, the court may think it desirable that these other officers of the court should do likewise. The question whether or not there should be such restriction is left to the court to decide. By the proviso we suggest that in taking into account these restrictive fees, we are only doing so in respect of the obligation by the assisted person to make payments to these officers of court in the first instance, but should the assisted person be successful in his litigation and come to tax an account against the unsuccessful party, that restriction would be ignored in the taxation of the account.
The new Subsection (4), which gives rise to the third point, provides for the court, by act of adjournal or act of sederunt, to make provision for the taxation by the appropriate auditor, either of the court of session or of the sheriff court, of the account of expenses which will be submitted by the solicitor to the Law


Society in respect of the work which the solicitor has done in connection with the legally assisted person's case. At the present time the provision is only made for the taxation of accounts as between party and party, but manifestly there may have to be a taxation of accounts between the solicitors and the Law Society in respect of the fees due to the solicitor, and we take advantage of this provision to make it statutory that the court can enact by act of sederunt or act of adjournal that such accounts will be taxed by the appropriate auditors.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: We have listened with interest to the Lord Advocate moving this Amendment. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper, I was a little mystified as to why it could be necessary to restrict the fees of these officers of the court and the shorthand writers. After all, the work which they are to do is to be the same whether they are employed in the case of an assisted litigant or an independent person, and it seems strange that there should be provision for this differentiation in their remuneration. In drawing up this Clause, which deals with an internal matter concerning the machinery and the administrative arrangements of the courts, did the Lord Advocate have consultations about it with members of the legal profession and those who are concerned in the administration of the courts? Will he tell us whether this meets with their approval?

Mr. McKie: I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). No doubt what was specially in his mind was the fees to be paid in respect of certain officials of the court. Representing as he does one of the Edinburgh divisions, it is natural that matters affecting those employed by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland would concern him most of all. I am concerned especially with those who work in the sheriff courts of Scotland. I know a little about the immense amount of work they now have to perform. I can assure the Lord Advocate that a great amount of drudgery is entailed for those who work in the sheriff courts of Scotland, particularly the shorthand writers. I know one very well indeed. He is a

very old personal friend of mine. I have not consulted him about the Amendment because I did not know that it would be on the Order Paper until I arrived this afternoon. However, I know that if he were here he would bear out what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend in general and he would also testify to the accuracy of what I am saying, in particular with regard to the work done in the sheriff courts of Scotland in this respect.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will be in a position to tell us with regard to both the Court of Session and—if I may use the word without disrespect—the inferior courts, of which the sheriff court is the most ancient of all, whether there were full consultations with the very hard working and responsible people concerned about this desire to limit the fees or remuneration which they receive in these specially aided cases. I know just as well as my hon. and gallant Friend knows that the work which they will have to undertake in this sort of case will be none the less onerous and may indeed be more onerous than the work in the cases which at present come before them in the usual way. I hope the Lord Advocate can enlighten us further on this very important point.

7.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: There seems to be a certain misconception with regard to the purpose of this Clause, because it merely makes it permissive for the court to restrict the fees payable to the various people mentioned in the Amendment, namely, the auditors of court, messengers-at-arms, sheriff officers and shorthand writers. So the question of restricting the fees does not arise at this juncture, and it will only arise if the court thinks fit to do so. I explained earlier that the court may think fit to do so, because other people who give even more service than those mentioned in the Amendment, are doing so on a scale slightly less than the full scale. The final decision will rest with the court and not with the Government, and therefore I did not think it desirable to consult the representatives of these bodies at this stage. However, I consulted the legal profession in connection with this and the other Amendments.

Mr. McKie: And the sheriff?

The Lord Advocate: No, only the Lord President of the Court of Session


who is the titular head of the court in Scotland. It will be the Court of Session which will pass the acts of sederunt and of adjournal. It will be the appropriate time for these bodies to be consulted, if necessary, as and when the Court decides to pass the acts of sederunt and of adjournal restricting the fees. On the broad general policy, we thought it desirable to confer that power on the Court of restricting the fees to bring these people, if need be, into line with the other members of the profession who are giving their services on that restricted basis.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The learned Lord Advocate brings forward a rather difficult point here. He is quite entitled to speak for himself and the profession, and for those who were consulted in the matter, but this touches the rights of entirely different people—shorthand writers, for instance. Here is an example of the difficulties one gets into in regard to reduced fees. In the analogous case of the medical profession, the great surgeons and physicians gave their services free in the hospitals, but it was never suggested that the ancillary servants of the hospitals should give service at a reduced rate, and it is a dangerous precedent that we are setting here. The great lawyers, of course, give their services at a reduced rate, but, as the learned Lord Advocate will readily concede, they are acquiring skill in the practice of their profession. It is part of the responsibility and duty which they have taken on, but it also carries with it certain advantages. A young lawyer who has appeared in a great case is a man of greater stature at the end of it than he was at the beginning. The same cannot be said of the shorthand writer who has taken down a long and difficult case. The work of the technicians is of an entirely different kind from that of the high specialists who prepare and plead the cases.
Is this to extend to the printers who set up the recounts of the cases? Is it to extend to the typists who translate the shorthand into the documents from which the printers work? Where is this to stop? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the time to discuss this is not now but when the court has passed the acts to which reference was made.

The Lord Advocate: Not "has passed"; "is considering passing."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, is considering passing, but that again puts the courts in a difficult quandary. The discretion then is put upon the court to negotiate one of the most difficult of all things, a cut rate for the job.

The Lord Advocate: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wish us to take this from the courts and accept the responsibility ourselves?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is not a responsibility which should be put on the courts. At any rate the suggested Amendment might leave out the shorthand writers, the people directly employed in courts—the auditors of court, the messengers-at-arms, the sheriff officers. I am not one to dogmatise upon that, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is venturing on to difficult ground in asking the court to do so. Nothing is more difficult than negotiation as to proper rates of wages, and the clerical unions concerned might find themselves in a difficult position when asked to accept a reduced fee in this matter.
I do not think that the Committee is being well advised in this matter by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I trust they will look further at this point. It is true that it arose in the discussion upstairs, but the Debate then turned largely upon the remuneration to be paid to the legal profession, and a strong case was made out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of the rate of 85 per cent. which occurs in the Schedule and to which reference is made in what is now Clause 6 of the Bill but which was originally Clause 5.
That, however, was an entirely different matter. Here we move out of the realms of learned professional men giving their services at a reduced rate in recognition of the duty they owe to the community and the admitted improvement in their skill gained from the practice of their art. This is a matter affecting people who are working upon well-recognised rates and who will be put in a difficult position if asked to reduce those rates, while those who are asking them to do so will be put in a still more difficult position. I beg the learned Lord Advocate to consider whether in the case of these technical people, he is wedded to the proposal now before the Committee. I


hope he will say that he can meet us in this matter; otherwise we shall have to take the opinion of the Committee upon it.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: May I try to get the Lord Advocate to clarify this by taking a case in which one of the litigants is aided and the other is not? If I understand this correctly, the officers referred to in this Amendment are doing the same job whatever is the result of the case, but if the aided litigant wins his case, these officers will be paid their full normal rates while, if the other wins, it appears that this Amendment makes it possible that the officers will not be paid their full rates. That is a peculiar situation to put before the Committee, for it seems to give the officers a vested interest in one side or the other winning the case. It is a most amazing proposition, and I would ask the Lord Advocate to think about it again.

The Lord Advocate: I am afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten that during the earlier stages of the Bill we had already agreed in principle to the court fixing the fees to be paid to these people, including the shorthand writers.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No.

The Lord Advocate: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at Clause 13 (3), he will find that that power is already vested in the court; and no opposition was put forward during the Committee stage to that proposal. All we are doing in the Amendment is making it clear that in fixing these fees the court can, for the purposes of the legal aid provisions, make a restricted fee if it thinks fit. Accordingly, I do not think there is any point at all in the major objection put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are investing the court with the responsibility of fixing these fees.
The reason for giving this permissive power to the court is that which I have already explained; that if the court thinks it equitable that these people also should give their services at an abated rate, having regard to the fact that counsel and solicitors are already doing so, the court may decide to abate the rate payable to these various people.

That is the beginning and end of the Amendment so far as that is concerned.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) asked what would be the effect. I thought I had explained that, although perhaps jejunely, in my introductory remarks on the Amendment. The position is simply this. If the court were to restrict the fees payable to a shorthand writer in the case of a legally assisted person, that person's solicitor would pay the restricted amount at the appropriate time to the shorthand writer—at the time, say, when the proof or jury trial was to take place. If at the end of the day the assisted person was successful, in putting in his account of expenses he would be entitled to charge the full rate, and not the abated rate, against the other party. There is nothing revolutionary in that, because we have already accepted this in principle with regard to the abated rate of fees for counsel and solicitors in Clause 6 (7); so that here we are only extending to shorthand writers and others the principle we have already accepted for solicitors and counsel. If, on the other hand, the unassisted litigant were successful, then in his account of expenses he would put in the amount which he had expended himself, which would be the full amount because he did not get the benefit of the provisions of the Amendment. He would put into his account of expenses the full amount which he had to pay to, say, the shorthand writer as his share of the shorthand writer's fees.

Mr. N. Macpherson: There is a difference, however, in that in the one case the counsel and solicitor for the aided litigant are, in a sense, getting a success bonus if finally the assisted litigant is successful and the fees are taxed at the full amount against the opponent. That is not the case with the officers of the court, who are completely impartial.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The solicitor and counsel do not get any special bonus; they get only the 85 per cent. fee. If the full fee is recovered the balance will go to the Legal Aid Fund and not to the solicitor or counsel.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I quite see that point, and I think I did my best to indicate to the Committee that I accepted


the decision which the Committee upstairs had come to upon the question of the 85 per cent. We argued against it, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, but it was finally decided against us and we accepted that decision. But this really is quite a different matter, and I would call the attention of the Committee to Clause 13 (3), to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, the Court may, by act of adjournal or act of sederunt, as the case may be, fix the fees to be paid to messengers-at-arms, sheriff officers and shorthand writers in connection with proceedings to which a person receiving legal aid is a party.
7.45 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is stretching it a bit when he says that, having accepted that in principle, we have thereby conceded this new point which he is making that a reduced proportion should be fixed. I am sure that anybody connected with making trade arrangements who read that would take it for granted that what was being fixed was, to use a jargon phrase, a rate for the job; that it would be fixed having regard to the ordinary fees and so on which were being paid elsewhere. Nobody would consider that we had in any way conceded the principle that a cut rate should be fixed for clerical employees like shorthand writers. The position of the professional man, whom we have discussed and whose position has been agreed, is something quite different from the position of the clerical employee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went

on to say that the clerical employee would be in a different position from the legal people employed, in that if the legal people won the case, they did not get any increase upon the 85 per cent. but that the shorthand writer would get an increase on that figure.

The Lord Advocate: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I may be wrong, but I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the restriction should not affect sums recoverable by virtue of an award in favour of a person who had received legal aid.

The Lord Advocate: They would go to the Legal Aid Fund also.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That makes the position more difficult than ever. The clerical employee who happens to be engaged may suffer an arbitrary deduction from his hard-earned wages, which is thereupon contributed to a fund for legal aid. I do not see any justice in that. I certainly see no reason why that principle should not equally be extended, as I have said, to the typist who types the shorthand report of the proceedings and to the printer who subsequently sets it up. The Lord Advocate is leading us to a difficult position, which I would not recommend my hon. Friends on this side to accept, and we shall be forced to divide the Committee on this point.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 226.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McFarlane, C. S.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gage, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Bower, N.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Maude, J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Challen, C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hope, Lord J.
Odey, G. W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Drewe, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.




Sanderson, Sir F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Smithers, Sir W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Touche, G. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stanley, Rt. Hon O.
Turton, R. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Studholme, H. G.
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.


Teeling, William
Ward, Hon G. R.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Grey, C. F.
Nally, W.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Grierson, E.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Oldfield, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon (Glenvil)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hardman, D. R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Baird, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Barnes Rt. Hon A. J.
Haworth, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Battley J. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Pryde, D. J.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hubbard, T.
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ranger, J.


Bowen, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N)
Rhodes, H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Janner, B.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jay, D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Scollan, T.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Segal, Dr. S.


Callaghan, James
Kendall, W. D.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Sharp, Granville


Cobb, F. A.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cocks, F. S.
Kinley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Collick, P.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Collins, V. J.
Lang, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Snow, J. W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras S. W.)
Lyne, A. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McAdam, W.
Swingler, S.


Diamond, J.
McAllister, G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La I.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Donovan, T.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Titterington, M. F.


Ewart, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Fairhurst, F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Farthing, W. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Watkins, T. E.


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Weitzman, D.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Medland, H. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, F.
West, D. G.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh E)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gibbins, J.
Moody, A. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.
Wigg, George


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grenfell, D. R.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)




Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woods, G. S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wyatt, W.



Wise, Major P. J.
Yates, V. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.

Proposed words there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(INFORMATION AS TO RIGHT TO RECEIVE LEGAL AID.)

A notice in the prescribed form shall be printed upon every summons to the Court of Session, Scottish Land Court and the Sheriff Court, informing the defendant shortly of the provisions of this Act relating to legal aid.—[Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Lord Advocate will remember that towards the end of the Committee stage, we on these benches moved two new Clauses which would have had the effect of providing the members of the public seeking assistance under the provisions of this Bill, with information as to their rights both in civil cases and in cases where criminal charges were involved. In replying to the discussions the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not unsympathetic towards the intention of these Clauses. I would call his attention to the passages which appear in col. 379 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th April. At the same time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt that the object which we had in moving these Clauses could best be achieved by administrative action. However, he did say that he would give further consideration to this matter between the Committee and the Report stages. Unfortunately, we have not observed on the Order Paper any Government Amendment dealing with this point. Therefore, we have put down this new Clause.
It will be within the recollection of the House that both the Cameron Committee in Scotland and the Rushcliffe Committee in England recommended that the fullest publicity should be made available for

the benefit of people who might wish to avail themselves of the services provided by this Bill. I hope, therefore, that at this stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to give effect to the views expressed by these two extremely important committees by accepting this new Clause. Alternatively, it may be that as we do not muster any Scottish lawyers in our ranks on this side of the House, the words are not entirely satisfactory from the drafting point of view, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give us an assurance that he would adopt some alternative wording when the Bill goes to another place which would have the same effect, that at least would be some encouragement.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Motion.
The long Title of this Bill says that it is to
make legal aid and advice in Scotland more readily available for persons of small or moderate means. …
It is those persons of small or moderate means who are least able to know what goes on in this House, and to whom, generally speaking, information about legislation is least available. The Bill provides for the making of legal aid and advice more readily available, but it does not provide for the dissemination of knowledge about this provision. It seems to us on this side of the House to be desirable not only that the benefits of the Bill should be made more readily available but that the knowledge that they are available should be as widely as possible disseminated among people who are likely to want to take advantage of them.
There are various ways in which that could be done, and we suggest a way which we think is a good one because it is a means of bringing home directly to men and women concerned the provisions of the Bill as they might affect them. If a man is served with a summons to appear before the sheriff court we want that summons to state upon the face of it the benefits that he can get, if he applies for them, from the provisions that we are here making. That seems to us to be the best


way to do it and the best way, perhaps, of following the recommendations of the Cameron Committee that the knowledge of the availability of these provisions should be widely disseminated.

The Lord Advocate: When this point was raised in Committee, I gave an undertaking that we would look very carefully at it between that stage and the present stage with a view to deciding whether or not something of this nature could be incorporated in the Bill, and I can assure the House that we gave it very careful and anxious consideration. At the end of the day we decided that for the reasons explained in Committee it was undesirable to incorporate this provision within the ambit of the Bill, because while we desire and intend to give the widest publicity to the provisions of this Bill, we feel that this particular provision is merely one aspect that might have to be considered and would stand out in isolation if we incorporated it.
We feel that experience may show that we have got to vary the type of publication that we give to the provisions of this scheme and we do not think that we should be tied down in the provisions of the Bill to any one particular line. It would be possible under Clause 13 (1, b) for the court if need be, in regulating the procedure of any court or tribunal in relation to legal aid, to specify that any summons should contain a notice of this nature. It is much easier to do that by means of an act of adjournal or an act of sederunt rather than incorporate it as a mandatory direction in an Act of Parliament. If it were felt that this procedure was undesirable in so far as it cluttered up summonses unnecessarily, then it would require an amending Act of Parliament to remove it, whereas if provision were made for an act of adjournal or an act of sederunt it would be much easier to alter that if in practice it were found to be undesirable.
I said that this proposed provision would stand in isolation, and I think that is so particularly in relation to civil cases, because in civil cases the notice of the provision of legal aid would only be given on the summons which was served on the defender. Of course, we are very anxious to bring to the attention of all people their rights under this scheme, not only in relation to the right to defend actions

but in relation to the right to prosecute actions. We also want to bring to their notice the right to legal aid in what we referred to in Committee as the intermediate stage. We also want to bring to their notice the right to obtain legal advice.
Accordingly, we feel that notification to the public of these rights can be done by a variety of administrative means. We hope to consult with the Law Society with a view to securing the widest possible publicity to the benefits of legal aid and advice provided by this Bill. Perhaps it would be indiscreet of me to indicate at this stage all that might be done in consultation with the Law Society, but I might give the House some prima facie view as to what might be done. We feel that there should be a general explanatory statement, which would be disseminated through the Press and probably over the wireless, indicating the nature and scope of legal aid and advice permissible under the Bill.
We also think that that could be supplemented by discussion and news articles; further, that a pamphlet in everyday language should be prepared outlining in detail the scheme of legal aid and advice, what it amounts to, who qualifies for it and what procedure should be followed by a person seeking legal aid or advice under the scheme. The widest distribution should be given to that pamphlet and it should be made available through the profession to public authorities, court officials, citizens' advice bureaux, police stations and so on.
Once the local committees are set up under the scheme it will be their duty to do such local advertising and publicising as they think necessary and desirable. In particular, in relation to criminal cases, we feel that by administrative action we can bring to the notice of the person charged with an offence all his rights of representation at the various stages without the multiplicity of notices suggested during the Committee stage.
I am confident it is better to leave this to administrative action rather than to pin-point one particular thing that ought to be done, incorporating it in the Bill so that an amending Bill will be necessary if it were felt that the provision was unnecessary. For these reasons, and not for the simple one in


regard to the drafting—the Clause at present does not conform with Scottish terminology, because the word "defendant" is an English expression which is not found in the lexicon of Scottish legal jurisprudence—we are unable to accept this new Clause. I appreciate the intention behind the new Clause, but, as I have said, we take the view that this might best be done by administrative action as against putting it, in isolation, in the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am astounded that this new Clause should have been put down by the Opposition. I am surprised also to find the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) actually supporting it and encouraging a wider dissemination among the public of the contents of the Bill. I am quite sure that this alarm of mine will be shared by the solicitors of Scotland, especially by an eminent solicitor who has made very strong criticisms of the Bill in the Scottish Press. He will read with horror that the Opposition are not only endorsing the provisions of this Bill, but actually proposing to carry on a kind of propaganda in favour of it. These fears will certainly not be allayed by the statement of the Lord Advocate that there are to be long explanations made in the Press and in pamphlets.
I have had sent to me a very interesting statement by a well-known and eminent member of the Scottish Law Agents Society of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow and of the Faculty of Procurators in Greenock, Mr. John J. Campbell, who has taken a leading part in the Scottish Press in opposing this Bill on the grounds that it is nothing more than rank Bolshevism and Communism. I am really surprised that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen is endorsing such proposals by supporting this new Clause. I should like to quote from this pamphlet in order that Members may have some idea that the persons really behind this Bill are the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and Karl Marx.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member believe me when I say that I welcome this Bill with intelligent anticipation, to provide the victimised members of John Lewis and Company with free legal aid?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes, and I should like to give a considered legal opinion of the organised solicitors of Scotland as outlined by this pamphlet. It is nothing less than an open letter to the Lord Advocate, which I hope he has read with the seriousness and consideration it deserves. It says of this Bill:
These findings reflect the deep-rooted conviction of the whole profession that Scotland's ancient legal system is in danger of being swamped by Asiatic ideas, that her constitutional rights and historical traditions are being trampled in the mire of materialistic politics and that coercion is a weapon of Socialist planners which will be used ruthlessly to bludgeon truth and justice.
That is the Bill the Opposition wish to strengthen by this new Clause. He goes on to say:
Well, in the Christian faith, a majority is one plus God and, in that knowledge, the utmost resistance will be offered against the imposition of the Marxist plans of the anti-Christian elements which riddle, from top to bottom, not only the Haldane Society, but also the Labour Party of Great Britain.
Far from opposing this Bill, the Opposition are now proposing to bring in a new Clause pointing out to every defendant in Scotland the provisions of this very suspicious Measure. He goes on to say——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I do not think the hon. Member need read much more of that pamphlet. He is making his case quite effectively without it.

Mr. Gallacher: But it is very interesting.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Then, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall merely conclude with the peroration of the pamphlet.
It is a matter of profound regret for many of us to find you, as Lord Advocate, leading against your own brethren, the forces of aggression. It may be that you have not fully realised the sinister implications of the Bill, and that you are unaware of the revolutionary lengths to which the Socialist movement is committed. In the light of this letter I do hope you will find it possible to reconsider your own position. Naturally you have the right to make your own decision. The choice is clear-cut, Marx or Christ.
In giving this final benediction to this Bill, I am surprised that the Opposition have aligned themselves with Marx.

Commander Galbraith: I am sure that we are deeply


indebted to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for calling our attention to what Mr. Campbell has to say on this matter. He will remember that some time ago we moved an Amendment in Committee similar to the new Clause, and we still stand by it. We believe that everyone should have the utmost possible information on this subject and should have their attention particularly drawn to it. I could not help feeling that the Lord Advocate was, in a way, putting up a kind of special case. He was going to do all kinds of things with all of which I strongly agree. I approve entirely his suggestion as to what might be done in the Press and on the wireless, and by discussions, news articles and pamphlets, but in addition to that, I should like everyone who receives a summons or notice that an action is being taken against him to have the matter brought directly to his attention.
As I understood the Lord Advocate, he thought that that would clutter up the summons, but I cannot see that that would be the case, because it could be quite a brief note at the bottom of the summons. The Lord Advocate said that this would be something in isolation, but all the defendant will get is the piece of paper that comes to him. He will wonder what to do about it and might think it did not matter. I cannot see that any harm is being done if his attention is drawn directly to his rights under this Bill.
For that reason, unless more strong opinions can be put forward, I propose personally to press the Clause. I cannot see what objection there is to it; the whole thing can be done practically without any expense whatever. The defendant in every case will know that he has rights under the Bill. It does not seem to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about

cluttering up the summons has anything to do with the argument. I am disappointed at what he has said, and I hope that even now, it is not too late to reconsider the matter.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: While appreciating the Lord Advocate's intention to deal with these matters by administration, I still do not feel that that is entirely acceptable. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has said that we oppose the Bill. That is not strictly accurate, inasmuch as we did not divide on the Second Reading. Although there are parts of the Measure we dislike, once a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it is the law of the land, and it is right and proper in a democratic country that that law should be known by as many citizens as possible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Member supporting the Bill?

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: My hon. Friends and I are supporting its general principle. As I said, we did not divide against the Second Reading, although there are certain provisions which we do not like. If ever publicity was required in connection with a Statute, it is the Town and Country Planning Act for Scotland, which was recently passed. This Bill is complicated, too, and it is desirable, I think, that there should be publicity so that people may know their rights and what services are available to them. The Clause is reasonable, and is based on authoritative statements made in both the Cameron and Rushcliffe Committees' Reports, which form the basis of the Bill and the corresponding English Measure.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 222.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[8.24 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)


Baldwin, A. E.
Drewe, C.
Head, Brig, A. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bower, N.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hollis, M. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Howard, Hon. A.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Challen, C.
Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D. P. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Channon, H.
Gage, C.
Langford-Holt, J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, Maj Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)




Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Turton, R. H.


McFarlane, C. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Raikes, H. V.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)
Walker-Smith, D.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ropner, Col. L.
Ward, Hon G. R.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Maude, J. C.
Smithers, Sir W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nicholson, G.
Studholme, H. G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.



Odey, G. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monntouth)
Major Conant and




Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gooch E. G.
Messer, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grierson, E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.


Attewell, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C)


Awbery, S. S.
Hale, Leslie
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hamilton, Lieut,-Col. R.
Nally, W.


Baird, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Balfour, A.
Hardman, D. R.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Battley, J. R.
Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Benson, G.
Haworth, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bing, G. H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Binns, J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Boardman, H.
Horabin, T. L.
Parkin, B. T.


Bowen, R.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.


Burden, T. W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham N)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Callaghan, James
Jay, D. P. T.
Ranger, J.


Carmichael, James
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cobb, F. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Rhodes, H.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Collick, P.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collins, V. J.
Kendall, W. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cook, T. F.
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Segal, Dr S.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sharp, Granville


Deer, G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Diamond, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.


Donovan, T.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAdam, W.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)


Fairhurst, F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W)
Stubbs, A. E.


Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Swingler, S.


Fernyhough, E.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sylvester, G. O.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibbins, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Timmons, J.


Gitzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Titterington, M. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Medland, H. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.




Ungoed-Thomas, L.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Watkins, T. E.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woods, G. S.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


West, D. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Ed'n'gh, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(SCOPE AND GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LEGAL AID.)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "avoid," and to insert "prevent."
This Amendment was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). It makes for greater clarity.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I am glad that the Government have seen fit to make this change of word. I agree with the Secretary of State that it will make for greater clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 22, after "in," insert "connection with."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF LEGAL AID.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from "paid," to the end of line 14.
This is consequential upon an Amendment made in Clause 6 (4) during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 16, leave out from "except," to end of line 17, and insert:
such payment as is directed by this Part of this Act to be made out of the legal aid fund."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert:
or of an agreement as to expenses.
We provide in the Bill for the case where expenses are recovered as a result of an award by the court. As hon. Members will appreciate, however, actions are sometimes settled out of court, with an arrangement regarding expenses. We seek by this Amendment to bring within the ambit of the Clause any such expenses recovered as a result of an agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, at the end, to insert:
having regard to all the circumstances, including the means and the conduct in connection with the dispute of all parties.
This indicates the circumstances which the court is to consider when deciding the amount, if any, which the unsuccessful assisted litigant has to pay by virtue of an award of expenses.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: This is not just a drafting Amendment. It deals with what is really an extremly difficult point, namely, the extent to which an assisted litigant should be exempted from the normal liability of paying the costs in an unsuccessful action in which he is engaged. It so happens that I raised this matter during the Committee stage, as did also the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), and some other hon. Members. There was a similar Amendment inserted in the English Bill last week and the Debate upon that Amendment was fairly long. A good many hon. and learned Gentlemen took part and expressed a variety of views.
The fact that there should have been this difference of opinion among English lawyers and that the Attorney-General himself should have confessed that
This is a most difficult problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 1354.]
does not make it easy for us as laymen to decide whether or not the course selected by the Government in putting forward this Amendment is the best one. The Cameron Report has this to say about it in paragraph 32:
We recommend that provision should be made to give the court before which the case depends power to modify the award of expenses against an unsuccessful assisted litigant. The court should have before it the litigant's statement of means, as accepted by the certifying Committee. We further recommend that, in no case should the amount of expenses awarded exceed the amount of the litigant's contribution. The court should also have power to make orders for payment of expenses in such cases by such instalments and at such periods, if any, as shall seem proper in the circumstances.


The corresponding report in England, the Rushcliffe Committee, stated in paragraph 172, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3):
We recommend that if the assisted litigant is unsuccessful, that any order for payment by him of the costs of the successful party shall be limited to such amount as the Judge may direct having regard to the financial circumstances of the assisted litigant (and for this purpose the Assistance Board will supply a certificate of financial position if so required by the Judge) and any order so made shall only be enforceable in such manner as the Judge may direct.
Sub-paragraph (3) goes on to say:
That the assisted litigant's household furniture, tools of trade and house shall not be considered as part of his means for this purpose.
I feel therefore that to some extent this Amendment is weakening the position of the assisted litigant and adding to his uncertainty as to his financial position should he be unsuccessful in any action. It will therefore make persons doubly cautious before they advance into the uncharted seas of litigation. Although that is quite a good thing in principle, it may very well bear hardly in individual cases.
On the other hand, the alternative suggestion put forward by certain hon. Members in the discussion on the English Bill, that the responsibility of paying all costs might rest with the State is obviously not satisfactory. As the Attorney-General pointed out in the course of the discussion last week, it might lead to extravagance in litigation and in cases being fought out to the bitter end when they could quite well be settled out of court. We therefore feel that, on balance, the Amendment which the Government have put forward is probably the best solution and we shall not oppose it; although at the same time we feel it is to some extent weakening the position of the assisted litigant and adding to his uncertainty.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "person," to "his," in line 40, and to insert:
who has been found liable in expenses.
During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) raised the question of whether or not it would be possible to carry out the purposes of this Clause because it would be necessary to inquire into means before making an award of expenses. I explained then that the court could always make a

finding of expenses in favour of a litigant and then adjourn the case to have the inquiry into means before actually quantifying the amount of expenses which might be awarded or making any limitation under the normal scale of expenses. In order to make the matter crystal clear, we have introduced this Amendment which I think makes it plain beyond peradventure that the court will have power to adjourn in order to ascertain the question of means.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for introducing this Amendment. I think that hon. Members on this side of the House consider that it is an improvement in that it makes the matter clear.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "and."
Subsection (5) provides certain exceptions which will be disregarded in taking into account the means of an unsuccessful assisted litigant against whom an award of expenses is to be made. As originally framed, it was intended that the power to prescribe exceptions should extend to the list of articles referred to and should not confine by regulations the diligence which could be executed on those articles. As drafted, the prescribing by regulations referred to the diligence and not to the range of articles. This Amendment is designed to make the prescription refer to the articles and not to the diligence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 43, after "prescribed," insert "and except as aforesaid."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASSISTED PERSONS AND PAYMENTS OUT OF PROPERTY RECOVERED.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out "avoid," and to insert "prevent."
This Amendment is identical with a previous alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 34, leave out "counsel or."

In line 35, after "expenses" insert:
or of an agreement as to expenses."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(ASSESSMENT OF DISPOSABLE CAPITAL AND INCOME AND OF MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The next Amendment selected is that to page 5, line 25.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out subsection (6).
This Amendment is designed to remove the reference to an inquiry by the National Assistance Board from the Clause. We feel that the proposed inquiry, however sympathetically conducted, and I feel sure it will be conducted with all care and delicacy——

The Lord Advocate: On a point of Order. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have not called the Amendment to page 5, line 16, to leave out subsection (5), and that you have called the Amendment to page 5, line 25, to leave out subsection (6). In these circumstances, may I draw your attention and the attention of the House to the fact that subsection (6) is really consequential on the provisions of subsection (5) and the system of inquiry into means set up thereby?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better have it moved.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I feel that to some extent these subsections hang together, but at the same time it is possible for us to make the point we wish to make on this Amendment.
The point I am making is that, although any inquiry which might be conducted by the National Assistance Board would no doubt be made most sympathetically, we feel—and this view was expressed by a considerable number of hon. Members during the Committee stage—that it might frighten away possible litigants who would otherwise avail themselves of the services of the Bill. For that reason, we wish to remove from the Clause the reference to an inquiry by the National Assistance Board. We consider that the provision under the proposed regulations under subsection (5) of the Clause should remain as at present—that of the statutory declaration—and that, if the local committee charged with the duty of investigating the resources under the plan

envisaged in the White Paper has any doubts as to the bona fides of any would-be litigant—that is, doubt as to the accuracy of the statutory declaration—the matter should be left to the local committee to take such steps as they are inclined to take. We feel that that would be the most satisfactory solution to this difficulty.

Major Guy Lloyd: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I did not quite take the Lord Advocate's point. While it is quite true that the rules to be followed would be those of the National Assistance Board in this case, it would not necessarily follow that the National Assistance Board should have to interpret these rules itself. The rules could quite easily be interpreted by the solicitor before whom the declaration has to be made, and the advantage of the declaration is that it will save a great deal of time. It will be possible for the question whether a person is entitled to legal aid or not to be settled right away in the first instance, before the question whether he has a case to go to court has been decided, which is what will be involved if the procedure envisaged in the Clause as it stands is followed. In that case, it will be necessary, first, to decide whether there is a case to go to the court or not, and afterwards for the National Assistance Board to investigate the means. We do not think that is right, and that is why we move the deletion of subsection (6).

Mr. McFarlane: I support the contention advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend in moving this Amendment. Subsequent to the Debate on the Committee stage, I regarded it as a reflection on the Bill that the means of ascertainment is based upon the investigation of the National Assistance Board. I confess to the House that when we came to this particular point in Committee, I had a divided mind on the subject. Certain legal friends have pressed upon me the point of view that they did not want this task of ascertainment; they regarded it as somewhat invidious and would be happy to see it handed over to the Assistance Board. I also listened with great respect to the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State for Scotland


when he spoke of the public economy which would result from taking advantage of the existing machinery. I think that was a perfectly cogent argument which we should take into account.
When the Lord Advocate came to deal with the situation, I am afraid that he turned my mind in the opposite direction. He said that it was desired through this machinery to create a new psychology. We all agree that it is an essential part of our social services that national assistance should prevent any unfortunate person from falling below a certain prescribed level, but at the same time we must agree that in Scotland there is a very large body of public opinion which looks upon national assistance, I would not say in a derogatory way, but certainly as something with which they hope never to be entangled. The emphasis of this large body of public opinion is upon self-reliance and independence. I think that we agree that these people are among the most valued members of our society.
It seems to me to be particularly regrettable that in a Measure of this nature, when we are providing monetary assistance from the State to enable people to vindicate their independence in the sight of the law, they should first of all have to go through the hands of national assistance. I think that when we look at this matter from that point of view, we certainly subject them to what, I think, is a derogatory state, and for that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. Scollan: May I point out to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane) that it is rather amusing for Members on this side of the House to listen to the kind of speech he has made about Scottish independence being insulted when people are looking for legal assistance if they have to go to the Assistance Board and go through some kind of examination with regard to their means to ascertain whether they can qualify for legal assistance or not. I would say, without actually knowing the figures, that there are more Scotsmen and Scotswomen who had to go through the vile degradation of the old means test imposed upon them by the Tory Governments of the past than are ever likely to go through this modest provision that is made here.
What actually happens today? Nobody approaches public assistance in the spirit

which existed in those days. It has been a very difficult job for the Government to eradicate the stigma of the old obnoxious means test, but, nevertheless, in the short period during which this Government have made the laws of this country they have educated the public to appreciate that there is a vast difference between allowing abuses of public funds and a Christian and civilised administration of assistance to people in need. That position has been established, and I would point out to the Opposition that the best type of Scottish people have never at any time hesitated on behalf of their sons and daughters when they were applying for bursaries to further their education, to place at the disposal of an examining committee the total income of the family, and never at any time did they consider it degrading so to do.

Mr. McFarlane: Is that not equivalent to the statutory declaration for which we are pleading by this Amendment?

Mr. Scollan: No, not at all. Subsection (6) lays down that it shall be determined by the National Assistance Board, who may call attention to any special circumstances affecting the maximum amount of the lump sum and the periodical payments which could reasonably be made in contribution. Is it reasonable to ask the Government to put the assessment of what these people are able to pay into the hands of their legal representatives? Obviously not. Some impartial and independent body is better able to assess what can be done than any interested party. Consequently, I would oppose any interference at all with this subsection, because I consider this to be one of the most valuable safeguards that the public have, that while legal aid can be granted to those who cannot afford to pay for it, public funds will not be abused by people who are interested only in getting their clients more than they should get.

Mr. Carmichael: I am afraid that I am not as happy about this subsection as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). There are a number of reasons which entitle us to argue against it. I said in Committee, and I now repeat, that the Poor Law is not removed by passing legislation. I am satisfied that unfortunately the Poor Law mind still operates


today in regard to the granting of relief. That is my considered opinion from considerable experience. It does not necessarily follow that those who administer it, do so with a Poor Law mind, but in Scotland today the Poor Law mind still operates in the minds of hundreds of people, who consequently will not apply for relief. I can give hundreds of examples in the City of Glasgow of people who still refuse to have their case examined in detail by the Poor Law.
It has already been argued on this Bill that in dealing with legal aid in Scotland we are dealing with an entirely different form of law from that in England; but apparently, when it comes to an examination of needs, the National Assistance Board scales apply all over the country. I do not like the set-up, but the more important point on the administrative side is the declaration. It has been suggested that if a declaration is asked for there is the danger that people who are directly interested will not pay the same attention to means as an outside body. But the regulations are already laid down, and all we are now deciding is who shall make the examination. The scales, the income and capital of those concerned have already been determined I say that this is a departure which has not been made in any other field of legislation or administration in which financial aid is concerned.
9.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew referred to bursaries. Who examines the case when someone applies for bursary aid for his children to go on to higher education? Not the National Assistance Board; nor the Poor Law, but the authority which ultimately decides to give the grant, the education committee itself. Who examines the case of the person who complains about his Income Tax? It is the Inland Revenue only and no other body. My contention is that from the point of view of administration alone, it is sound to leave this particular business with the people who are going to do the entire job, because one of the many things disturbing people today is that they have to go from one body to another to clear up certain points.
Under this Bill a person first makes an application to a solicitor to see if he has

a case, and the solicitor after examination agrees that he has. The client cannot go any further, because he has doubts about his means. He makes representations to the Assistance Board, and then he is examined by the Board, which agrees that he is entitled to assistance. He takes the case back to the solicitor and then they begin to take the necessary proceedings. It is easy for people like ourselves, looking at the thing in the abstract, to say that there is no difficulty there, but this will be harder in actual operation. Anyone who has experience of the Poor Law or the machinery of the Assistance Board knows how an applicant can be sent from individual to individual before his case is fully examined.
From a purely administrative point of view it would be wise to confine this to the people associated with the business, even the lawyers. It has been suggested that there should be very severe penalties for people who make false declarations, but the people who make false declarations before justices of the peace are very much in the minority in the community.
My last point is that it is true that the Lord Advocate in Committee made some concession to ease our minds in that he suggested that he would second specialists from the Assistance Board for this particular work. I am prepared to accept this at this stage, but I would ask the Government to take great pains and watch the operation of this scheme to see whether the Assistance Board is the right body to operate it. Should it be found that it is not so, I hope the Government will come back to the House with an amended form of legislation so that it may be handed over to the Committee to examine it.

The Lord Advocate: I was very much surprised at the opening statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). When he expressed that view it was for a very small minority from this side of the Committee. He remarked that the Poor Law was not removed by legislation. One of the greatest things we have done in recent legislation is to remove the Poor Law from this country, and we have done it not only by legislation but by consequential administration. If the allegation is made that the Poor Law mind still operates then, as I said in Committee, that is something


which we have to break down. I say this more in sorrow than in anger, that I do not think that that breaking down process will be helped in any way by speeches such as that of my hon. Friend.
I should like to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane). He extolled something with which we would all agree, the self-reliance and independence of the Scottish character, but he got into a very contradictory argument, when he made out that that self-reliance and independence would be shocked if the inquiry were made through the National Assistance Board, but would be appeased if it were made through a solicitor. The inquiry is just for the same purpose, to see to what extent the applicant is entitled under the Bill to legal assistance. It does not seem to me in any way to affect the question of self-reliance and independence. An inquiry, made from one source or the other, is to achieve the net result of deciding whether or not the applicant shall get public money to help him in his litigation.

Mr. McFarlane: What I meant by my statement about psychology was that it was bad psychology to base the inquiry on the National Assistance Board.

The Lord Advocate: If we are building up the new psychology, I cannot see that there should be any differentiation between a man who asks legitimately for public assistance in the form of national funds to allow him to get the necessities of life and the man who applies to the same funds for supplementation to enable him to carry on his litigation. It seems to me to be the same position and that there is no distinction which can be drawn.
Let me get to the real merits of the Amendment. We have to bear in mind that we have already accepted the previous provisions of the Clause, which entail a great deal of detailed inquiry regarding such things as the deductions which may be made under subsection (1, a), the further allowance under subsection (1, b), the question of the allocation between capital and income which has to take place under subsection (2) and the other things which are prescribed in subsections (3) and (4). Then, in subsection (5) there is the difficulty of computing what should be taken into account, having regard to those provisions of the

National Assistance Act which we have incorporated into the Bill. Those matters will call for a great deal of inquiry and therefore the more specialised the person who has to carry them out the better. We have not the advantage of the system which was prayed in aid by hon. Members opposite of having an affidavit, because the Amendment which sought to include that in the Bill has not been called.
If all these inquiries have to be done, and eventually a calculation has to be made having regard to those circumstances, as to how much should the man contribute—that is the decision which eventually has to be made—one would, if one were not resorting to this procedure, require to have a very involved and complex questionnaire filled in by the applicant. Surely it is a much easier way of doing it to have a man skilled in this type of work conducting the inquiry, and getting results more accurately and expeditiously than could be obtained by a questionnaire or, for that matter, through an affidavit.
It was suggested that this should be done by solicitors and by the local committee. This is not a line of country in which solicitors are particularly experienced. In my consultation with the legal profession I put this matter up to the solicitors and I asked them, "Would you be prepared if the suggestion were made to undertake the responsibility of working out whether or not a person is entitled to legal assistance having regard to all the qualifications, and if so, what his contribution should be?" The representatives of the solicitors' profession said to me quite categorically that they did not wish to undertake that responsibility. They thought that the proper person to do it was a national assistance officer. I would say in fairness that there was a dislike of the suggestion, because of the hereditary dislike of public assistance, of which not many of them have had practical experience, but they realised that this was the best course to adopt.
Accordingly, they do not want it, but we feel that, whether they want it or not, for the most efficacious working of this administration the proper person to do it is the person skilled in this type of work, and there is nothing in the man's designation, calling, or associations which in any way disqualifies him from the


work. Indeed it rather qualifies him for it, and merely to reject this because of some hereditary stigma which attached to the old poor law or the public assistance is just a refusal to face up to facts and an attempt to replace this by something less worthy because of that prejudice.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman started by taking the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) to task. With every deference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having for many years known the work and experience of the hon. Member for Bridgeton in the field of assistance, I would rather take his views on this matter than those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked later on of people without any practical experience in this field, I should have thought that compared with the experience of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience was very small indeed in this field. It is for that reason that I take the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton very much to heart in connection with this matter.
Further, I believe that he is right. I believe that there still exists a feeling somehow that going to the National Assistance Board is demeaning in a way. That is to be regretted, but I believe it is still there. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Well, what is the difference really? If he has to go to the National Assistance Board for the needs of life, what is to stop him going to the National Assistance Board for legal aid?" That may be quite a good argument, but, after all, when one's livelihood is concerned, one must go, but when it is a case of legal aid, one need not go. We want this Bill used and we want legal aid to be forthcoming, and we do not want anything put in the way of people obtaining it, and if going to the Assistance Board is an obstruction, we would rather have it removed.
I cannot see why it should not be possible for this examination to be carried through by the local committee. The rules which have to be followed are laid down. The rules were in the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act and they have been repeated in the Second Schedule of this Bill. Whoever

has to examine this matter has everything placed before him. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not a matter for the local committee and that it is not a matter for lawyers, but I remember that during our discussions the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the local committees would have officials attached to them who need not necessarily be lawyers. It might well be that someone of that kind could be appointed here, someone who in a very short time would understand all the matters which have to be taken into account and deal with them very quickly.

The Lord Advocate: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the difference between that suggestion and the suggestion I made in Committee that an officer of the National Assistance Board could be seconded to the local committee for this purpose? To that extent he would be just as much an officer of the local committee as the person to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers?

Commander Galbraith: Is that to happen?

The Lord Advocate: It can be arranged administratively.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it can be arranged administratively, but that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the Bill and that is not in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "It can be." He does not even say that it will be. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that officials of the National Assistance Board will be appointed to these committees——

The Lord Advocate: Oh, no.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not say it. That is all right; we are back where we were.

The Lord Advocate: One does not need to be appointed to a committee to be acting for the commitee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely knows that.

Commander Galbraith: An official of the committee? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an undertaking if he wishes to help——

Mr. Woodburn: The individual would be bound to remain a member of the


National Assistance Board. He could not shift on to any committee.

Commander Galbraith: That disposes of the matter completely. What I thought was intended was that officials of the Assistance Board might be seconded for this purpose.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

9.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: That is rather a different matter. No, I think there is a good deal in this point. It is something we want to overcome if possible and, if the Government are not willing to give way and accept the Amendment, then I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide on it.

Mr. Gallacher: I shall not vote for the other side if this goes to a Division, but I have a certain sympathy for the line they have been taking. I have nothing like the experience of the Assistance Board which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has, and what experience of it I have had, has not been good. It must be noted that the Government have been operating in a period of post-war boom, when there has not been a great amount of work for the Assistance Board, but still it has been difficult to get things through that Board. If we go into a slump, as there is some suggestion we may do, we shall find the Poor Law operating harshly on the Assistance Board. It is not just a matter of the Tories. The Tories have a terrible record in connection with the means test, but one of the worst circulars ever sent out was sent by the Minister of Health in the Labour Government of 1929. So this matter should be taken away from the Assistance Board.
I would add the further point that in Committee it was said that this was the Board to deal with matters of that kind. If it is the Board to deal with the matter of means, why did we not have a Clause in the Housing Act that the Assistance Board should decide means? It was argued that this was an admirable body for deciding means, but it should not be a question of directing all sorts and conditions of people to the Assistance Board, because that Board will be quite incapable of coping with them.

Mr. Willis: This was one of the most contentious matters

when this Bill was discussed before the Scottish Grand Committee and, having listened once again to the Lord Advocate, I still fail to see what his reply is to the case put by the Cameron Committee when it recommended a statutory declaration. Incidentally, that Committee consisted mainly of lawyers who, we are now told, are against this proposal. The Cameron Committee rejected the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee concerning this matter. They did so because they had some experience of a statutory declaration. I understand that a statutory declaration has been accepted in Court of Session cases since 1933. If it has worked well since then, why should it not work well afterwards?
The only argument adduced by my right hon. and learned Friend is that because some people have their incomes assessed by the National Assistance Board, anybody who requires assistance or who has his income assessed for any purpose should also be assessed by the National Assistance Board—at least, that is the logic of it. That is quite contrary to what happens in this country. There are various means of assessing incomes and people do not all go to the National Assistance Board. One might just as well argue that the best people to examine Income Tax returns would be the National Assistance Board. One might just as well argue that when a parent applies for a bursary for his child, it should be the National Assistance Board which judges it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) said. But I do not think that is the right way.

Mr. Scollan: It is done by the education committee.

Mr. Willis: Never mind what it is; it is not the National Assistance Board. There are other occasions when people's income has to be assessed for various purposes when different methods of assessing income are used. What the Cameron Committee said was:
We further recommend that a Certificate of Means, setting out fully the requisite information as to capital and income, should be furnished by way of Statutory declaration, to be made before any Solicitor.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), I would say the Bill already contains full details of how that assessment has to be made. I cannot see what difference exists


between a person filling in a form before a lawyer to give these particulars and a person giving them to one of the personnel from the National Assistance Board and having them recorded by him on a form——

Mr. Scollan: Why is the hon. Member objecting to it?

Mr. Willis: I am coming to that. The Cameron Committee went on to point out that the declaration
should be fenced with criminal penalties of fine or imprisonment …
I raised this point in Committee, but still there is no reply to it. The Cameron Report went on to say:
This declaration of means should be submitted to the Local Committee along with the application for legal aid, to be presented by a Solicitor on the panel. It should be within the power of the Local Committee to accept without further inquiry the declaration as to means. …
In other words, the case could then be proceeded with at once. That would be more expeditious than for the man to have to wait until such time as the National Assistance Board had assessed his income before the case could be proceeded with. This is a perfectly feasible idea, which commanded the support of a committee set up to examine the proposition. That committee rejected the suggestion of the use of the National Assistance Board. This seemed to be in accordance with practice in Scotland since 1933, and to be a much more flexible method of dealing with this problem.
We have not yet had any reply on the question of expedition in dealing with a case. If justice is to be of value it should be swift. For these reasons, I should have thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would have given this matter rather more consideration than appears to have been given to it, rather than to have succumbed, as I think he has succumbed, to what was decided by a committee appointed to inquire what was happening in England.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope we can make progress with the Bill. I deplore that the discussion on the Clause has been used by one or two hon. Members for an attack on the Assistance Board. During the war the Assistance Board was recognised as the friend of people who were bombed out and rendered homeless, and during times of flood it has been recognised

as a friend of people who were washed out. It is recognised by many old people throughout the country as a generous and attentive social service, and I deplore that this smear of the Poor Law has been put across the National Assistance Board by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I very much regret that whenever progress is made, it should be depreciated to such an extent.
The idea that we should put into the minds of people the impression that our social service has the dishonour, one might say, that used to attach to the old Poor Law is very much to be regretted. To my personal knowledge the Assistance Board is acknowledged by old people to be their friend; many of them recognise the officers who come to deal with them as kindly, decent people, who are encouraged to treat folk as they would their own relatives. That is my appreciation, at least, of the Assistance Board. While in some parts of Glasgow there may be people who think differently, I am very glad to say that throughout tile rest of the country the impression is quite different.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) used the occasion to repeat a slander upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) in suggesting that he sent out the worst circular regarding the Poor Law that was ever sent out in this country. That is simply not true. That circular which was sent out was an amendment asking that people should be treated more kindly. It was misrepresented up and down the country by enemies of our party and very largely led to the defeat of Labour in 1931, and it may be used again for the same purpose.
The Assistance Board administer relief to hundreds of thousands of poor people today. If there is any kind of disgrace of the kind of which hon. Members have spoken tonight attaching to it, they ought to move for its abolition and for something to be put in its place, but if they are prepared to accept it as part of the administration of the people, it cannot be wrong for those who want legal aid. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has not complained of the administration of the Assistance Board in ordinary affairs and I say it is quite wrong that he should insist that another


class of people should be treated as though they were the aristocracy of the people and require a different treatment from ordinary people.

Mr. Carmichael: Are we now debating the work of the National Assistance Board—I think the right hon. Gentleman has been on that particular theme—and all its ramifications, or are we dealing with one particular phase of its work? The right hon. Gentleman's attack is quite unjustified. At the proper time I am prepared to put my case regarding the Assistance Board, but I was limited in this Debate to a particular Clause. I do not run away from any of the allegations I made, but I stick to them.

Mr. Woodburn: If my hon. Friend will read the subsection of the Clause to which we are referring he will see that the only thing, in it is that the Assistance Board shall determine the needs of the persons concerned——

Mr. Carmichael: It does not say that at all.

Mr. Woodburn: if my hon. Friend will read subsection (6)——

Mr. Carmichael: It does not say that.

Mr. Woodburn: —he will find that it only refers to the National Assistance Board and, therefore, it is quite in Order to discuss that. It is simply dealing with the National Assistance Board and this has been put in by the Government and not by any particular Committee. It is Government policy and the Government have to accept responsibility for what they put in the Bill.
We are dealing with large sums of money. The possibility of expenditure in connection with legal aid is enormous and we have to protect the public against any abuse of this expenditure. I beseech hon. Members to realise that they have a responsibility in this direction to see that there is no abuse for a service of this kind, which can run into great sums of money. It is a great experiment we are carrying on and the Government have very carefully considered how far they can go in risking this expenditure.
Therefore, they have established in the Bill what they regard as the best means for seeing that the right people get the benefit and that the wrong people do not get the benefit and that the benefit shall be supplied for the purpose for which the

Bill is designed. I commend to the House the recommendation that the Assistance Board should deal with this in the same way as they deal with a great deal of administration.

9.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am very interested in the discussion because I founded the National Assistance Board; it was my work. I must say that at the time I did not hear nearly so many encomiums as have been heaped upon it this evening.

Mr. Woodburn: It has improved since then.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It improves; the right hon. Gentleman has improved since then; I hope that I have. People talk about the smear on the National Assistance Board. Anything said tonight is merely a smut on its collar compared with the sort of thing which was said by hon. and indeed right hon. Gentlemen opposite when I was introducing it into the social system of this country. We on this side of the House have not made any smear on the National Assistance Board. I should very much deprecate any smear upon it. When we were setting it up I believed that it would do a good job of work, as it has done. When I was introducing the system of disregards I said that they would be of great benefit to the people of this country, and I believe that they have been.
The argument that is being used is that the Board is an inappropriate organ of our social system to apply to this particular problem, that the problem is more analogous, to use the instance given by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), to, let us say, the education system and the inquiries that are quite rightly made as to the means of someone who is asking for assistance from the community to send a son or daughter to have the benefits of higher education. That is quite right. As I said in Committee, there are many bodies which closely examine the incomes of people in this country, and which have much greater knowledge of the higher brackets of income than has the Assistance Board. There is the enormous and meticulous machinery of the Inland Revenue, which has a knowledge of the incomes of people which would make the Assistance Board stagger backwards with surprise if it secured access to their books.
I do not really think that this matter requires the heat which was imported into it by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The contention is that in general the older system of this country should be allowed to operate, that in general——

The Lord Advocate: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the oldest system in Scotland was the system of inquiry by the inspector of the poor.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so, the grammar of the Lord Advocate has faltered a little on this point. I did not say the "oldest" system, I said the "older" system, the system before this one, which was the system of the statutory declaration. It is true that the previous system was that of inquiry by the inspector of the poor, but it is ultra-conservatism on the part of the Lord Advocate to say that we should go back to the more ancient system, rather than to the comparatively improved system under which we were operating.
I submit that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Secretary of State has brought forward any argument to discharge the onus which lies upon them. It is in the grammar of legislation that the onus of proving that a proposed change of law is desirable, lies upon those who seek to make the change. Where is the scandal that has arisen? What has failed in the existing system? What is the abuse or defect which the right hon. Gentleman wishes here to correct that he is seeking permission to alter the law of Scotland? Before he does so, it is an elementary question to ask what is the abuse which is at present being shown in the working of the law in Scotland which makes it desirable here and now to make that alteration.
We should get away from the arguments for and against the Assistance Board. The hon. Member for Bridgeton, who has almost unrivalled knowledge and experience of it, says that in his experience there is a certain deterrent in the operation of that system. He may be right or he may be wrong, but he has great knowledge in these matters. No one will deny that there are many alternative methods by which the same result could be brought about. All that

we are suggesting is that some of these alternative methods should be used. For myself, I would certainly deprecate any attack upon the Assistance Board. I am more than delighted to find it receives such universal applause as it is offered. To night I stand with pleasure at this Box, even in the cold shades of Opposition.
Many harsh things were said about the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) because of the circular which he sent out. It was not an entirely innocuous circular as he suggested it was. I will say this. Of all the harsh things said against the right hon. Member for Wakefield, much harsher things were said against me; and if the right hon. Member for Wakefield is to be exonerated, I trust that retrospective exoneration will be passed upon me for what is now universally recognised as the very beneficent contribution which I made to the law of this country when I had the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Rankin: I wish neither to praise nor to bury the National Assistance Board, because I do not see that it has anything to do with the question before us. There may have been extremes in the discussion on both sides in regard to the Board. The only point that faces us is this: is the National Assistance Board likely to be the most efficient instrument for carrying out this particular job?
From my own experience within the City of Glasgow I would say that the National Assistance Board at the moment could not face up to this job. The Secretary of State for Scotland must know that. Indeed, in most parts of Glasgow, and particularly in my own division, the National Assistance Board is simply overwhelmed with work at the present time. When this matter was before the Scottish Grand Committee, the learned Lord Advocate to a large extent admitted that case; and made what I understood at the time to be a promise to the Committee that a special officer would be appointed to act in connection with the National Assistance Board as part of its machinery for this particular work. It needs not merely an officer but almost another Department. Now tonight, it


seems to me, he more or less repudiated what he said in the Scottish Grand Committee——

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Rankin: He seemed to me to repudiate it, because when he was charged he said that an individual can be appointed. It would make the position clear and easy for all of us if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of saying the individual can be appointed, would give us an assurance that this individual will be appointed. I quite agree

that if we are accepting this particular piece of machinery, then such an individual must be appointed, and I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend to tell us now that such an individual will be appointed. If he says that, he will meet to some extent, although not completely, the objections which many of us have to this particular part of the Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 89.

Division No 161.]
AYES
[9.42 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Albu, A. H.
Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs L.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morley, R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.)


Attewell, H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Murray, J. D.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
O'Brien, T.


Binns, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Boardman, H.
Horabin, T. L.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Pargiter, G. A.


Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Parker, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Hubbard, T.
Parkin, B. T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Burden, T. W.
Janner, B.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Burke, W. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Callaghan, James
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pryde, D. J.


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Randall, H. E.


Collick, P.
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Collins, V. J.
Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cook, T. F.
Kinley, J.
Rhodes, H.


Corlett, Dr J.
Lang, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Deer, G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Royle, C.


Diamond, J.
Lipson, D. L.
Scollan, T.


Dobbie, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dodds, N. N.
Longden, F.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Donovan, T.
Lyne, A. W.
Sharp, Granville


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllister, G.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.


Ewart, R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fairhurst, F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Field, Capt. W. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, T.


Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sylvester, G. O.


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gooch, E. G.
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)




Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D. G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Timmons, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Titterington, M. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woods, G. S.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Raikes, H. V.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Astor, Hon. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Howard, Hon. A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Langford-Holt, J.
Studholme, H. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sutcliffe, H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McFarlane, C. S.
Turton, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Molson, A. H. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Odey, G. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.



Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL.)

9.50 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, after "aid," to insert:
or of an agreement as to expenses in favour of such a person which provides for taxation.
This Amendment is similar to a previous one, with the same explanation. We have provided in subsection (7) that the provisions of subsection (5), which restricts the fees of counsel and solicitors to 85 per cent., will not affect the sums recoverable by virtue of an award of expenses in favour of the person receiving legal aid, but once again it may be that there is an extra-judicial settlement whereby a person will get so much by way of principal sum and so much by way of expenses attached, and we want to bring that type of case into the ambit of the scheme, as we did previously.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 44, after "award," insert "or agreement."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(RIGHT TO AND NATURE OF LEGAL ADVICE.)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 40, and to insert:
(a) to swear an affidavit before the person employed to give legal advice that his gross income does not exceed such sum as may be prescribed by regulations made under the provisions of this Act.
This Amendment is somewhat similar to one moved in Committee by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), who stated a fixed sum—I think it was £500 per annum gross. We prefer to leave the income limit to be fixed by regulations which the Secretary of State is empowered to make under the provisions of Clause 12. In the discussion in Committee, the Lord Advocate said of the subsection as it at present stands:
I agree that it is a bit fluid. I agree that it may be difficult to get strict uniformity in application. I agree that it is probably the most speculative part of the working of the Bill.


Later in the discussion, the Secretary of State took exception to the introduction of the fixed sum which was contained in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh, and he stressed the need for flexibility. However, in concluding his speech the Secretary of State said:
We are quite willing to examine the points raised this morning to see whether any better system can be devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 29th March, 1949; c. 268 and 271.]
We consider the wording of the Clause as it stands at present as rather lacking in precision and as unsatisfactory, and we hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment which has as its merits both simplicity and flexibility.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: As I pointed out in the Committee, this undoubtedly is a difficult part of the scheme which we are putting into operation. Having considered the matter very carefully since then, we still feel that the best way of operating this part of the scheme, namely, the provision of legal advice, is to leave it to the Law Society to work out the best means of determining whether or not a person is entitled to this legal advice. As I indicated in Committee, in order to get uniformity within an area we should probably have to have an inquiry made by an official of the local committee, thereby obviating the necessity of the solicitor making an inquiry in the first instance, and, secondly, getting more uniformity of treatment.
The type of advice which is being given here is oral advice. It is a very flexible type of assistance that is being given. It does not involve any complicated working, and we do not want to

make this branch of the scheme too complicated either in its administration or in its working out. We feel that this Amendment would not give that simple working which we desire. It would involve the swearing of an affidavit, with regard to the applicant's gross income, which would be determined by regulation. That, in turn, would mean working out a very complicated scheme of determining what the gross income should be, because a person's real income may vary according to his personal commitments, according to the size of his family and according to quite a variety of circumstances. Therefore, the formula contained in the Amendment is one which we do not think would work out very satisfactorily.

We have to bear in mind the nature of the assistance that is being given and the precaution which we have taken by the payment of the prescribed fee to prevent people coming in off the street to get advice on any old subject under the sun. We feel that by leaving it to the Law Society to work this out we are enabling the Law Society, by trial and error if need be, to get the most desired result, whereas the incorporation of this Amendment would lead to a rigidity which in practice might nullify the scheme. For those reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

Lieut. - Commander Hutchison: I listened carefully to the Lord Advocate, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied. We feel that this is a matter on which we must stand firm. It was discussed in some detail in Committee and strong feelings were expressed upon it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 82.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[9.56 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blyton, W. R.
Champion, A. J.


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Cooks, F. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bottomley, A. G.
Collick, P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Fig, Offr. H. W.
Collins, V. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bramall, E. A.
Cook, T. F.


Attewell, H. C.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cooper, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cove, W. G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daggar, G.


Balfour, A.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Binns, J.
Callaghan, James
Delargy, H. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Carmichael, James
Diamond, J.




Dobbie, W.
Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, M.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Donovan, T.
Longden, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
Lyne, A. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAdam, W.
Royle, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.
Scollan, T.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T.
Segal, Dr. S.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.
Sharp, Granville


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widoes)


Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Fernyhough, E.
McKinlay, A. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Simmons, C. J.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Gibbins, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Solley, L. J.


Gitzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sparks, J. A.


Grierson, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Steele, T.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Medland, H. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Hale, Leslie
Messer, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Middleton, Mrs L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Titterington, M. F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Horabin, T. L.
O'Brien, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hubbard, T.
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Janner, B.
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jay, D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Comdr H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Randall, H. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Kinley, J.
Ranger, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lang, G.
Rankin, J.
Woods, G. S.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. F.


Leslie, J. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rhodes, H.



Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Astor, Hon. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, J. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gage, C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bowen, R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Bower, N.
Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, M. V.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Crowder, Capt, John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McFarlane, C. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.




Turton R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)



Vane, W. M. F.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Commander Agnew and


Walker-Smith, D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Mr. Studholme.


Ward, Hon. G. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out "he thinks."
Subsection (11) says:
The limitation of legal advice to oral advice shall not prevent the person giving it, where he thinks the person seeking it will need a written note of the advice given or any part of it, from giving him such a note.
We feel that the decision whether a written note should be given of the advice tendered should not be left to the person giving it. We feel that the person receiving the advice, is the one who should know whether he wants a note of it.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend will notice that on the previous page it is stated that the legal advice shall consist of oral advice on legal questions. There is a distinction between legal advice and a legal opinion. When we come to put what the hon. Gentleman calls legal advice down in the form of an opinion, it becomes a much more serious matter than giving a person legal advice as to what he ought to do. It is obvious that a person who calls to seek for legal advice has not any idea whether he wants it written or not, nor would he know beforehand whether it should be written.
Certainly, if he wanted it written, there is no reason why he should not ask that it should be done in writing, if there were any difficulty about his keeping the advice in mind. But if it were made compulsory and obligatory on the person giving the advice, that every piece of advice must be written if the applicant asked for it, it would introduce questions whether that would become a legal opinion which could be brought forward at a later date. This would put the taking of legal advice on to a plane which was not contemplated in this part of the Bill. If the oral advice is that the applicant should have a legal opinion, for example, that would require legal aid, and then it would come under another Clause of the Bill. I can see what my hon. Friend is after, but his proposal would make this part of the Bill quite different from what was contemplated when it was drafted.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(FUNCTION OF LAW SOCIETY.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out "may provide."
When the Clause was discussed in Committee it was pointed out that it would include lay members of the central supervisory committee. As hon. Members will recollect, any scheme which will provide for the inclusion of lay members has to be approved by the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that the inclusion of lay members is to be a sine qua non of the scheme and that we should make provision for them by using the imperative "shall" instead of the permissive "may." Solicitors with whom I have discussed the matter have expressed an opinion on the point. They have realised the desirability of having lay members on the central supervisory committee and they have no objection to the inclusion of the imperative "shall" in lieu of the permissive "may," to ensure that there shall be lay representation on these committees.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: When this matter was discussed in Committee there was a good deal of talk about the ratio of independent persons to representatives of the legal profession on the central committee. The Cameron Report said that there should be three members. The White Paper accompanying the Bill left the number to be decided by the Secretary of State. The Clause says that the number may not exceed one-third of the total membership. In Committee, the Lord Advocate favoured a policy of flexibility by leaving the number to be fixed by the Secretary of State of the day. It will put the matter in proper perspective if I quote the observations which the Lord Advocate made in Committee.

The Lord Advocate: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman quotes that, will he observe that this Amendment does not in any way deal with the question of numbers?

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No, but it does make mandatory what was permissive, and in the quotation I was about to read the Lord Advocate argued in


favour of the power being permissive and not mandatory. That is the whole point. I am trying to show the House that the Lord Advocate has now changed his mind in bringing forward this Amendment. He said:
If the scheme proposed by the committee of the Law Society to which I have referred were to include so few lay representatives as not to have proper consumer interest on the committee, then undoubtedly the Secretary of State of the day would consider whether or not that was a proper scheme, if there was a lack of balance between lay and professional representation. Therefore, it is not necessary to put in the imperative "shall." The permissive "may" is sufficient for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 30th March, 1949; c. 391.]
That was the Lord Advocate's view on the Committee stage and it is our view now. It is rather unfortunate that he should have resiled from the attitude he took then, although it would appear that in the meantime he has consulted members of the legal profession.

Mr. Willis: This Amendment covers the point of an Amendment I had down, and to that extent I welcome the change from the permissive to the mandatory.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 18, at end, insert:
by the Secretary of State."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(REGULATIONS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, at the end to insert:
or has a reasonable expectation of receiving financial or other help from a body of which he is a member.
The House will recollect that under this Clause we take power to make regulations to meet the special circumstances where the applicant for legal aid has available to him rights or facilities which might make it unnecessary for him to receive legal aid in whole or in part. There may, however, be certain circumstances where a person who has not the right to legal aid has reasonable expectation of receiving such legal aid. It may be that he is a member of some sort of society which, not as a matter of right but as a matter of practice, is wont to give legal assistance to its members. We feel that if he has recourse to such other means of assistance the regulations should provide for taking that into account just as in the

case where he has as a matter of contractual right recourse to such assistance.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: It may be within the recollection of the House that subsection (3, a, iv) as at present drafted was actually incorporated in the Bill during Committee stage as a Government Amendment. In his explanation at that time the Lord Advocate mentioned that it would cover cases where motor cars were involved and there might be a liability for an insurance company to act for a litigant. That seemed a very clear and reasonable proposition, and we passed the Amendment without further discussion. I am not, however, quite sure what further bodies the Lord Advocate has in mind. He has not mentioned any this evening. Does he, for example, have in view trade unions or professional associations, or even such things as sports clubs? It would be of advantage to the House if he would give examples of what he means.

10.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The type of case cited by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is the typical type of case we have in view. In these organisations it is usually found that legal assistance is not given as a matter of right; it is given as a matter of custom or practice, but the association or society reserves to itself the right not to do so. That is the big distinction between that type of case and the compulsory motor insurance where the insured person has a legal right which he can enforce against the insurance company. In the other type of case he has not the legal right which he can enforce as a matter of law against the society or association. If, however, it has been the practice or custom of an association to grant legal assistance in cases of that nature, we feel that type of case should be brought in, and the regulations will deal with that. It is difficult to consider these regulations at this stage. The proper time to do so will be when they come for consideration before the House, if they do so.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are getting a little meticulous in this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have deprecated strongly the importing of what has been called the Poor Law atmosphere into this


matter, but are we not beginning to chase round the applicant in just the way that was deprecated in the case of previous applicants for assistance? The difficulty here is that the applicant cannot demand help from a body of which he is a member. He may have a reasonable expectation, but what the House is about to say to such an individual is, "You must exhaust every right"—to use a parliamentary cliché—"You must explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned before you come forward with a proposal that you should receive this legal aid or assistance."
I am thinking of the City companies of one kind or another from whom people may have a reasonable expectation of receiving financial or other help, but it is by no means a certainty. Are we not in danger here of fencing the table so meticulously that no sinner may approach even to the confines? The danger here is greater than the advantage which we may seek to obtain. I do not think that the danger of somebody getting this legal aid is like the attraction which morphia has to a morphia addict, or even which alcohol has to a confirmed dipsomaniac. He will not strive so urgently to seek legal aid. He will himself try to find any sources which are available. To say that he must exhaust, by application, every source from which he has reasonable expectation of receiving financial or other help, even if it is a corporate source, seems to me to be carrying it too far. I think the Lord Advocate would be better advised if he did not insist on the House accepting the words which he and his right hon. Friend have set upon the Order Paper.

Mr. McKie: I would add a word in support of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I was delighted to hear him use a phrase which I used to hear when I was very young—"fencing the table." There can be few hon. Members in the House now who remember that time-honoured ceremony. I do not remember it, perhaps my right hon. and gallant Friend does, but I have heard a lot about it and his use of that phrase tonight was particularly apt when he stigmatised the right hon. and learned Gentleman for seeking to prevent applicants, as though they were sinners, from approaching this, we hope, munificent

aid which is to be extended to them in the way of legal aid and advice.
There is another reason why we should not introduce words like "reasonable expectation." The right hon. and learned Gentleman is skilled in all the intricacies of Scottish law and will be well aware that there are occasions—I think I am using the right legal phrase—where it is impossible for a person to test merely on a reasonable expectation. In other words, "reasonable expectation" is not enough to allow a person who imagines that he or she is heir to considerable expectations to make a will or to found any claims upon those expectations until they are amply realised. No moneylender or bank would advance any considerable sum merely on the assumption of "reasonable expectations."
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman insists upon these words he is putting himself in considerable danger of reversing—or, as he would think, improving—Scottish law. I am not altogether satisfied that a Socialist Lord Advocate is the proper person to seek to improve upon Scottish law as it now stands. I implore the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again, not merely because I am opposed to experiments in Socialism, but because I do not think that even he, with his political prejudice, if he was well aware of what he was doing, would seek radically to alter the law of Scotland by the interpolation of this Amendment which includes these rather dangerous words. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks again, he will realise the truth of what I say. "Reasonable expectation" is not a good enough thing to found upon or test upon in Scottish law or in any other law, so far as I understand it. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend that we are here putting ourselves into serious danger.

Mr. McKinlay: I am not in love with the word "reasonable," but I have never seen such a wicked desire on the part of the Opposition to hand away public money easily as they have shown tonight. The contributions paid by a member of a trade union cover benefits which include legal aid. I hope that hon. Members opposite do not invite trade unions, when the Bill becomes law, to contract out of their obligations and to park all their legal cases, because of


the personal means of the aggrieved person, under the provisions of this Measure. There are other organisations which include in their contributions a proportion to provide legal assistance as and when necessary. That, of course, may be an obligation from which they could contract out.
I should like to relate an experience of a superannuation fund in a trade union in the days of the generous old age pension of ten shillings per week, which was subject to a means test. The unions discovered that thrifty persons who had paid contributions to provide themselves with an extra ten shillings a week in their old age had their pension reduced shilling for shilling by what they themselves had provided. What happened was that the Woodworkers' Society stopped paying for superannuation. They did not see why they should subsidise the pension fund of the Government.
I agree that some reasonable safeguard is necessary. I hope that on another occasion the Opposition will be as elastic as they have been tonight in piling on the agony and generously handing away public funds. The Lord Advocate has done his best to accommodate the criticisms made in the Committee and I congratulate him on having listened, on one occasion at least, to the criticisms from his own side instead of from the benches opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, to leave out from "shall," to "House," in line 10, and to insert
not come into operation unless and until approved by resolution of each.
Hon. Members will recollect that when this Clause was discussed in Committee, we moved a similar Amendment substituting affirmative Resolution procedure for the annulment procedure laid down in the Bill. That Amendment was withdrawn after we had received an assurance from the Secretary of State in which he said he would have a further

look at the matter before the Report stage. We are sorry to observe that the Government did not see fit to put down any Amendment and, accordingly, we have put down this Amendment. We still feel that the regulations which may be made under Clause 12, in particular those which fall to be made under subsection (3), are of great importance and may be very far reaching. It is desirable that they should receive the assent of this House before coming into operation. We regret that the Secretary of State has not reconsidered the matter and seen fit to put down an Amendment allowing the use of affirmative procedure in this matter.

Mr. Woodburn: As promised, I looked at this very carefully and examined every item in this part of the Bill. There was nothing which would justify taking up the time of the House with an affirmative Resolution. We have recognised what the Opposition feel about this matter, and any substantial alteration would come under the affirmative Resolution procedure under Clause 1 (4, b). These are matters of less moment and matters which vary from time to time. However desirable it may be for the House to discuss important matters, it is a physical impossibility for the House to discuss every minor matter which is to be changed. If we put in the affirmative Resolution procedure it would destroy flexibility and make it more difficult to correct abuses. It would handicap the whole procedure of the Bill, and I am sure that hon. Members do not wish to put an undue handicap on it.

Commander Galbraith: We regret the decision the right hon. Gentleman has just announced. We feel this is a matter of considerable importance and one which should be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 72.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Balfour, A.


Albu, A. H.
Attewell, H. C.
Benson, G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Binns, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Bacon, Miss A.
Blackburn, A. R.




Blenkinsop, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bottomley, A. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bowden, Fig, Offr, H. W.
Janner, B.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowen R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepoel)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Keenan, W.
Scollan, T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Burden, T. W.
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Granville


Burke, W. A.
Lang, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widness)


Callaghan, James
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Carmichael, James
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Collins, V. J.
Longden, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, J. W.


Cook, T. F.
McAdam, W.
Solley, L. J.


Cooper, G.
McAllister, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sparks, J. A.


Cove W. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Daggar, G.
Mack, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Deer, G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Delargy, H. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Diamond, J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dobbie, W.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Donovan, T.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Timmons, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Titterington, M. F.


Ewart, R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Fairhurst, F.
Medland, H. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Farthing, W. J.
Messer, F.
Usborne, Henry


Fernyhough, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Field, Capt, W. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Weitzman, D.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Murray, J. D.
West, D. G.


Gibbins, J.
Natty, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon John (Edin'gh E)


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Gooch, E. C.
O'Brien, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Grierson, E.
Oldfield, W. H.
Witley, F. T. (Sunderland)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Parker, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hardy, E. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wise, Major F. J.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pritt, D. N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.
Woods, G. S.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Horabin, T. L.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Houghton, A. L. H. D. (Sowerby)
Randall, H. E.



Hoy, J.
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hubbard, T.
Rankin, J.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, Hon. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
McFarlane, C. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bower, N.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Channon, H.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Maude, J. C.


Crowder, Capt, John E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Molson, A. H. E.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nield, B. (Chester)




Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon. C. R.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ropner, Col. L.
Turton, R. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sanderson, Sir F.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Vane, W. M. F.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D.
Major Conant and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(RULES OF COURT.)

Amendments made: In page 13, line 38, after "expenses," insert "or any agreement as to expenses."—[The Lord Advocate.]

In page 14, line 4, leave out from "therein," to "and," in line 7.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(5) The powers conferred by this section on the Court shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, shall apply to a statutory instrument containing rules of court made under this section by the Court in like manner as if the rules had been made by a Minister of the Crown.
The object of this Amendment is to make it possible for the rules of court which will be made by act of sederunt and act of adjournal to be published by the Stationery Office among its publications so as to be as generally available as it is possible to make them. To do this we have to make the provision in this Amendment that they will be Statutory Instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946. To conform with the rules we have to provide that such rules of court made under this Clause by the court will be made in like manner as if the rules had been made by a Minister of the Crown. This is to bring into operation the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946. There are a number of precedents for this course. It does not mean, however, that these rules of court will be subject to Parliamentary approval or procedure. It is merely an expedient to get them reproduced among the Statutory Instruments for statutory purposes.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I was rather mystified, as a layman, in trying to interpret this Amendment. I had a horrid vision of the possibility of this House having a whole bunch of rules made by act of sederunt and act of adjournal shot at it to be prayed against for annulment. But it seems that the

point which the Lord Advocate has in mind is applicable only to printing services.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(OFFENCES.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 15, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(2) No information furnished for the purposes of this Part of this Act to the Law Society or to any committee or person on their behalf shall be disclosed—

(a) in the case of such information furnished by, or by any person acting for, a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice, without the consent of the person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice; or
(b) in the case of such information furnished otherwise than as aforesaid, without the consent of the person who furnished it;

and any person who, in contravention of this subsection, discloses any information obtained by him when employed by or acting on behalf of the Law Society shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the disclosure of information—

(i) for the purpose of facilitating the proper performance by any person or body of functions under this Part of this Act; or
(ii) for the purpose of any criminal proceedings for an offence thereunder or of any report of any such proceedings."

The purpose of this Amendment is to attach to the information dislosed by, or on behalf of, a person seeking legal assistance, the confidentiality which would normally attach to any matter discussed by a client. I should like to remove a misconception which appears to have arisen in Scotland; there seems to be some idea that this Amendment represents an intrusion into the ordinary rule of confidentiality between a client and his solicitor. That is not so. That rule is preserved elsewhere in this Bill, and we are not here dealing with the information passing between a solicitor and his client.
We are dealing with the information coming into the hands of the Law Society and its officials in the course of administration and, even if a solicitor were


employed by the Law Society, he would not be employed by the client in the ordinary way. Any such information disclosed will still be confidential, subject to two conditions; one, where it is necessary to disclose it for the proper working of the scheme and two, for the purposes of any criminal proceedings in an offence against the scheme. It is necessary to include this to give the protection which the scheme must have against improper and unfounded applications.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I remember that a somewhat similar Amendment to this was put on the Order Paper by the Government during the Committee stage but later withdrawn, due, I think, to some representations which the Lord Advocate had received in Scotland. I should like to ask if this new Amendment has the assent of those in the legal profession who are likely to take part in this service. I did not like the language in the proviso in the Amendment which was originally put down and was later withdrawn. I think that the wording of the present Amendment is much more acceptable, but there is just one point which arises and to which I draw attention That is, that when the corresponding Bill for England was under discussion in the House last week, the Attorney-General moved a new Clause incorporating most of the substance of this Amendment; but that Clause in the English Bill went a bit farther in that it appeared to me to give greater protection to the legal profession by incorporating two new subsections which, for the convenience of hon. Members, I should like to read. Subsection (4) of the new Clause, headed (Secrecy), states:
Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be brought without the written consent of the Attorney-General
and subsection (5) states:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that information furnished to counsel or a solicitor as such by or on behalf of a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice is not information furnished to the Law Society or a person on their behalf.
We feel that consideration might well be given by the Government, when this Bill reaches another place, to the insertion of some similar provision adapted to Scots law. I should be grateful if the Lord Advocate would consider this point because there is no reason why lawyers in Scotland should not be afforded the

protection given in the new Clause moved last week by the Attorney-General.

10.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the substance of this Amendment is exactly the same as the substance of the Amendment which was on the Order Paper at an earlier stage. It was the exact wording that I was not very happy about myself and for that reason we have translated it into the present words. It has been discussed with the solicitors, and as I indicated earlier in the House tonight all the Government Amendments we have tabled for the Report stage have been put up to the representatives of the General Council, and to the Faculty of Advocates as well.
With regard to the additional point included in the English Bill, the hon. and gallant Member wishes us to incorporate something of that nature, or to consider something of that nature. Of course, we cannot in considering this, incorporate the use of the fiat of the Attorney-General before criminal proceedings are taken, for that is essentially an English procedure. All public prosecutions in Scotland—and this would be a public prosecution—either lie with the Lord Advocate or come within his jurisdiction, where it means in the court of summary jurisdiction, namely the sheriff court. There is no question of the fiat of the Lord Advocate being invoked, because in the sheriff court and High Court that is part and parcel of the Lord Advocate's authority.
In regard to the additional protection given to solicitors, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Clause 1, subsection 7, where it is stated in terms that the relationship between counsel or solicitor and clients shall not be affected merely because of the fact that the client is in receipt of legal aid. Because of that it is unnecessary to add anything further to this Amendment as it is not dealing with the relationship between solicitor and client but between an applicant and the administrator who is dealing with his case.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate. It did seem that in the English Bill a new point had been brought forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 17.—(INTERPRETATION, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, REPEALS AND CITATION OF PART I.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, at the end, to insert:
so much of section (10) of the Act of the Parliament of Scotland, 1587, cap. 57, as provides for the appointment of counsel and solicitors to act for persons accused of crime.
This is really a drafting Amendment repealing the provisions of the Act of 1587 which will no longer be required.

Mr. McKie: I only rise to express surprise that not only has this important omission to be rectified by way of Amendment, but also to express surprise that the Lord Advocate said this was merely a drafting Amendment. After all, subsection (3) of this Clause starts off by referring us to an Act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1424. Now we are invited—and I am not quarrelling with this—to repeal an Act of the Scots Parliament of 1587, 160 years later. There is this remarkable difference: whereas the Act of the Scots Parliament in 1424 only relates to the compilation of the Poor Law, here we are to override a decision of the Parliament of 1587, the first year of King James the Sixth, as I may remind the House, dealing with the question of providing legal assistance by way of the appointment of counsel and solicitors to act for persons accused of crimes. That is surely a very much more important item than the compilation of the Poor Law by the Scots Parliament 160 years later.
I am indeed surprised that this very important matter should have escaped the Lord Advocate's attention so far. I agree that if we are to provide this legal aid at all we must make provision where necessary for the overriding of previous statutes. I am not complaining about that. I am delighted to think that as long ago as 1587 the then Scots Parliament should have provided legal aid in cases like this. I do think, however, that the Lord Advocate in framing this Bill should have had regard, before drafting it, to cases like this. I am surprised he has brought this in by way of an Amendment and am more surprised that he should have described it as merely a drafting Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: If I may reply to the surprising speech made by the hon. Gentleman, I would only say that if he had taken care to read the Bill, he

would have seen that we had repealed this section in the repeal section of the Bill and it is being incorporated in this particular part of the Bill for convenience.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(REMUNERATION OF PERSONS GIVING LEGAL AID.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in page 26, line 7, to leave out "expenses are awarded," and insert "the expenses are taxed."
This Amendment, and the following four Amendments can be taken together, because they are connected with the same point we are trying to effect. As the Schedule was originally framed we made provision for two types of expenses in the sheriff court. The two scales were the ordinary scale of expenses in the ordinary court and the lower scale of expenses normally applicable in the summary court. It appeared on reflection that the criterion we were using was the expenses awarded, but the expenses awarded between party and party might not be the appropriate expenses to use as a criterion on which a solicitor's account on the Law Society should be taxed. It might well be that the expenses awarded as between party and party were not the normal expenses appropriate to that particular type of case and for some reason or other it might be that the sheriff may say, "I am not going to award full expenses, but only limited expenses." Perhaps he might not award any expenses at all.
Therefore, we thought it better to get another formula to determine how the solicitor's expenses against the Law Society would be taxed. These Amendments give effect to that alteration, which is, that where expenses between party and party are expenses normal to that particular type of case, the solicitor's account against the Law Society will be taxed on that scale. If the scale for the expenses is not the normal or appropriate expenses to that type of case then the party entitled to his expenses can apply to have his account against the Law Society taxed on some other scale, and it will be for the sheriff to determine on what scale it will be taxed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 9, leave out "expenses are


awarded on the lower," and insert "the expenses are taxed on any other."

In line 27, leave out "expenses are awarded," and insert "the expenses are taxed."

In line 29, leave out "expenses are awarded on the lower," and insert "the expenses are taxed on any other."

In page 27, line 7, at end, insert:
4. The expenses incurred in connection with civil proceedings in the sheriff court shall, for the purposes of this Schedule, be taxed on the like scale as applies to the expenses awarded in those proceedings as between the parties thereto:
Provided that if no award of expenses is made, or expenses are awarded on a scale other than the scale which, apart from the special circumstances of the particular proceedings, would be applicable, the expenses shall, for the purposes aforesaid, be taxed on such scale as the sheriff, on application made to him, may direct."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 27, line 11, at end, insert:
5. Where regulations so provide, an amount whether on account of outlays or fees, fixed by agreement between the Law Society and the solicitor to whom such amount is payable in the first instance out of the legal aid fund shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated as if it were an amount allowed on taxation:
Provided that this paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any amount if any person to or by whom such amount is payable in whole or in part requires it to be fixed by taxation.
This Amendment enables the regulations to make provision for a solicitor to render his account to the Legal Aid Fund and to be paid any amount agreed between him and the Law Society without reference to taxation. As originally drafted every account put in by a solicitor against the Law Society would require to be taxed. That would have thrown a tremendous burden on the auditors, and we came to the conclusion that if the solicitor and the representative of the Law Society can agree that the solicitor's account was well founded and they can adjust it between themselves there was no need to refer it to taxation. On the other hand, other people may be interested in that taxation, and accordingly in the proviso we reserve the right of any persons entitled to payment out of the account to insist on the account being taxed by the auditor so that they may not be prejudiced.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Woodburn.]—[King's Consent signified.]

10.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: This is a Bill about which we on this side of the House are, I am afraid, still not quite happy, though we have done all we can to improve it during the Committee and Report stages. As I said in opening the Debate on the Second Reading for the Opposition in December last, we favour the general intentions of the Bill in so far as they are designed to reduce the cost of litigation to persons of modest means and to lessen the burdens which are at present borne by a good many members of the legal profession who at present undertake very important duties without any remuneration at all.
At the same time we feel, unhappily, that it is bringing nearer the day—which I personally hope I shall never live to see—when the lawyers of Scotland will become a species of State servant and the old traditions upon which the administration of justice in Scotland has been founded will gradually fade away. I speak only as a layman, but I do know something of the debt which we in Scotland owe to the great jurists of the past, and I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House are uneasy about the tendency of the Executive to trespass in the realm of jurisprudence. During the eight years that I have been a Member of the House, I have seen all too often cases where the ancient rights of the individual have been swept aside by the streamlined methods of the Statutory Rule and Order, and I cannot welcome this development as being in the real interests of a live and democratic nation. We find that our apprehensions are shared by quite a number of persons who are intimately associated with the administration and practice of the law in Scotland.
In support and illustration of that statement, I should like to read a passage from a speech made by an eminent Judge of the Court of Session, Lord Blades, at the dinner of the Law Society of Glasgow University on 22nd April. According to the "Glasgow Herald" of 23rd April, Lord Blades said:
I am bound to say that unless you band together as a strong united professional body, ready to fight to the uttermost for the great


traditions that the old Scottish lawyers have handed down to you, these traditions will fade away, and you will become simply the hand of the Legislature.
In other words, you will find yourselves some kind of legal civil servants. God forbid that such a day should ever come to pass; but unless you stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defence of the Common Law of Scotland, which is recognised all the world over for its soundness and sense, it will come to pass.
Those remarks certainly are calculated to increase our suspicions and make us wonder whether there is not some attempt to undermine the ancient and honourable legal traditions of our country. Whether those fears are right or wrong time alone can show, and it is idle to speculate on that tonight.
So far as the Bill itself is concerned in its amended form, I have only a few things to say as we have devoted a good deal of time to discussion of its details in Committee. First, although we recognise that Clause 12, which is the Clause empowering the Secretary of State to make a wide range of regulations, is a very definite improvement upon Clause 11 in the Bill as originally drafted, we still feel that it leaves extremely wide powers in the hands of the Executive. It may be that this re-drafted Clause will meet with more approval among the members of the legal profession than did the original Clause 11, but it does seem unlikely that all fears will be set at rest. All that we on this side can say is that we hope that in the making of those regulations, the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will act with discretion and will seek the advice of the Law Society.
My second point is in regard to the service which is to be given to the public under this Bill. We cannot approve of the supercession of the existing form of statutory declaration of means by an intending litigant by the much more complicated procedure which is laid down in Clause 4 of the Bill as amended. We are not satisfied, as we made clear during the passage of the Measure, that this new procedure is essential. We feel that it will act as an impediment and will frighten off a number of people for whom the services of this Bill are designed, as many people may not like to subject themselves to the process of investigation which is laid down in that Clause. We feel that this is an unfortunate provision of the Bill. It is certainly one which departs from the recommendations in paragraph

24 of the report of the Cameron Committee, upon which report the Bill is to a large extent based. Moreover, I would remind the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate that this procedure also departs from the views expressed by the Society of Writers to the Signet in the memorandum circulated last December, and also from the views held by the Muir Society.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the legal profession in Scotland in relation to this Bill. Here I can, I think, speak objectively as I am not a lawyer, nor have I been concerned in any way with the consultations or discussions that have gone on during the preparation of this Measure. Unfortunately, it seems that the proceedings have not been very harmonious. There have been misunderstandings and accusations, and unhappily, there still seems to be much resentment in certain quarters. Even the Lord Advocate will, I think, agree that the recent statement issued to the Press by the General Council of Solicitors was couched in terms which I can only describe as rather less than modified rapture.
I am sure, however, that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will agree that the legal profession in Scotland has great and proud traditions and has given a long record of disinterested service to the public. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill becomes an Act, and that when they are making regulations and arrangements under the Bill, they will seek to co-operate with the Law Society in every way possible to ensure that the services given will be both efficient and smooth working. We shall not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but we remain convinced that there are a number of unfortunate provisions in it and, indeed, some dangerous features about it. We hope therefore that in due course further improvements will be made to it in another place.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: When legislation comes before this House, a gruesome picture is usually painted of the scandalous situation which the legislation is designed to remedy. A feature of the passage of this Bill is that no such allegations have at any time been made, and it would not be right to complete the Third Reading without a tear for a system which has much that is worthy


and noble and much to commend it. That is true of the Scottish legal system. It has been said—and I think it was quoted by the Lord Advocate—of one great Scot jurist that so long as there were jurists, no Scotsman need want for a champion. It has been widely true throughout Scotland that where there was a good cause it was rare that it went without an advocate to defend it.
That is the system which, in this Bill, we are out to change. It certainly could not be changed more cheaply for the country in terms of finance. The question is whether it could be changed more cheaply to the country in terms which cannot be reckoned in finance. The training given in the sense of responsibility and service to young solicitors and young advocates by being called upon at one time or another during their careers to act as poor persons' lawyers—as the phrase was—or, again, to take briefs for no remuneration whatever, was something which was bound to inculcate that sense of service, pride in profession and sense of responsibility. That is now passing away. There may be advantages. We hope there will be, but do not let us delude ourselves into the belief that by putting this Bill through today we are making quite certain that everybody in future will have equal access to the courts.
I shall put the Secretary of State for Scotland completely at case when I say that I believe this is a faltering step in faint pursuit of England. If hon. Members choose to look once again through proceedings in Committee, they will find that time and again the Secretary of State has laid emphasis on the fact that we have to approach the new system with caution and must be very careful that we do not waste public money. Therefore, we have to have a National Assistance Board to control the whole affair and make certain that nobody shall have access to the courts with legal aid except within terms laid down for it in the National Assistance Act. There are these very strict regulations concerning those who are entitled to that aid.
I made a point during the Second Reading stage which still stands out now at the end of our Debates. It is that if you happen to fall just within the limit of £420 you can get unlimited assistance and your maximum contribution would

be, I think, something like £130. But if your net income comes just over £420 you get no justice whatever. That does not give equal access to the courts, or equality before the law. In so far as it is true, this is an imperfect Bill and is a faltering step. It may be a step in the right direction; that is something we have to find out.

Mr. Hector Hughes: What the hon. Member is saying is a perversion of the purpose of the Bill, which is giving as a right to poor persons what was before a matter of grace.

Mr. Macpherson: There are perhaps advantages in giving a right, but what we have also to remember is that we are taking away a sense of duty to the other side which was of inestimable advantage to justice in Scotland. Although there was no legal right, there was that sense of duty on the part of the legal profession which did ensure that, by and large, few good causes were left without an advocate.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the legal profession will lose that sense of duty because of this Bill?

Mr. Macpherson: I am not saying they will do so. What I am saying definitely is that one of the trainings in the sense of duty and of responsibility will now be removed, and that this is bound to have an effect. I do not say that the sense of duty will be removed. Obviously it will not. But it is all in the same direction as we have seen in the Health Service and in everything else, where you are creating rights in the interests of certain people and at the same time you are destroying moral duties and the sense of responsibility, which in the long run may prove much more disastrous.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely the hon. Member is wrong in saying that is being removed. It still remains. What is being given now is a legal right to legal aid.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already made that point, and I have already answered it. If he sticks to his point of view, I in turn stick to mine. That is why I regard this as a very imperfect Bill, and although we on this side are not opposing it, we certainly do not welcome it with any vast enthusiasm.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I think the hon. Member is less than fair to members of the legal profession in suggesting that because we are passing this Bill they will become less conscious of their civic duty. I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Member ignored. The scheme of legal aid in Scotland had become very unsatisfactory. There could be no doubt about that on the part of anybody who cared to spend any time looking at the scheme in operation. In the first place, the income limit was too low. It debarred most people from receiving free legal aid. In the second place, the work that fell on the legal profession had become too great for the profession to continue to carry. In view of these conditions it was obvious that something had to be done. I do not know what the hon. Member feels should have been done.
What was the alternative to this Measure? We have never heard that put forward by any learned Member of the party opposite during the whole course of the discussions on this Bill. I welcome this Bill as being a step in what I consider to be the right direction. It is true that there are parts of the Bill which some of us do not like. I found myself in agreement with hon. Members opposite on certain parts and raised these points during Second Reading. But we have had our fight; it is finished and we have got the Bill. I hope now we have it, every effort will be made to operate it to the best advantage of the litigants.
I must say it seemed to me that we have heard very little from the point of view of the litigant during the passage of this Bill. The consumer interest has not been stated very well. It is true that the legal profession have spread themselves very widely in the Press—in "The Scotsman," the "Glasgow Herald" and other Scottish papers—and have expressed their point of view forcibly. The result is that most of the time we have been presented with what undoubtedly has been predominantly the point of view of the legal profession. I cannot help feeling that possibly that is reflected in some parts of the Bill, and I am not too sure that is altogether in the best interests of the litigant. I trust that now the legal profession have had their say and debated the matter with my right hon. Friend, and the Bill is becoming law,

they will try to give what this House would like them to give—that is, the best possible service to litigants. I feel that they will do that, and I sincerely hope that now we have finished our debates we shall do all we can to make the Bill a success.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. T. G. Galbraith: In spite of the lateness of the hour, I have ventured to catch your eye, Sir, because I am rather a hybrid. I am a layman, but I am also to a certain extent trained in the law, so I should like to speak for a moment or two on this Bill. I think the main purpose of the Bill is good and that it is right that legal aid should be available to poor people and that justice should not depend upon wealth. In that I agree with the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), but where I do not agree with him is that, as so often happens with Measures proposed by this Government, the ideas behind the goodness are obscured by the inept way in which they are put into practice. So far as one can gather in reading this Bill, there might never have been a legal aid system in existence in Scotland before. The Secretary of State, instead of building on an existing system, has started de novo. What he is doing in this Bill is to pursue the familiar path of adapting Scottish institutions to an English Measure.

Mr. Willis: Would the hon. Member remember that never during the passage of this Bill has it been demonstrated how we could have done what he suggests without reaching something similar to what is contained in this Bill?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Member will wait for a moment until I develop my argument, he will see what I mean. The right hon. Gentleman became very angry the other evening when we were discussing the Housing Bill because he was accused of following the English example. I think his irritancy in that instance must have been because he had a guilty conscience. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing. In 1937—and this is the point to which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh wishes me to apply my mind—the Morton Committee sat on the very subject of legal aid, and it recommended that the defects which existed should be remedied by alteration and


amendment within the present system. The Secretary of State has not done that. The Government appointed the Cameron Committee not to bring the recommendations of the Morton Committee up-to-date, but to apply to Scotland the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, which means that the foundation of this Bill is an English foundation.
I do not want hon. Members to think that I am opposed to England or to English things. I am not. What I am opposed to is the blind urge which has compelled the Government, and compelled particularly the Secretary of State, to ignore the difference between, the legal systems of the two countries and to force upon Scotland a measure which is suitable for England. For instance, the fixing of £420 of disposable income to qualify for aid. If that is right for England, it is not right for Scotland, because legal expenses in England are at least two or three times as high as in Scotland.
I mention these facts not only because they are defects in this Bill, but because they seem to illustrate a tendency on the part of the Government to ignore the situation in Scotland, and to try to cure the situation in Scotland by applying remedies only suitable for England. Another example, though I may be out of Order if I mention it, was in saying that 6 per cent. was suitable for Scottish landlords as well as English landlords, without taking into account that the rating systems of the two countries are entirely different. I do not complain if the two countries are treated as one in matters which are common to them, but I do complain that, for the sake of uniformity and for ease, the Secretary of State, whose prime duty it should be to uphold the dignity of Scotland, seems to welcome and even to encourage measures which are an affront not only to national sentiment, but also to common sense and logic.
I should like to turn to another matter; that is the very chilly reception which this Bill has received from legal opinion in Scotland. The Lord Advocate said in Committee that he had had meetings with representatives of the profession; but he knows that there is no body in Scotland today which can adequately represent the opinion of lawyers in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member seems to be referring to

details which have no relation to the present contents of the Bill. I hope he will keep to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All I was trying to do was to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to various criticisms. If I ought not to have done so, I apologise for trying to do so, and I shall therefore pass on and leave out a point which I wanted to bring to his notice. I shall only say that, in my mind, it seems to be a great pity that this Bill, and this great, noble project, should have been conceived in an atmosphere of suspicion and uncertainty, which has been the case so far as the legal profession is concerned. The Secretary of State had a great opportunity this evening, if he had allowed us to carry our Amendment and to modify——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now dealing with something which has been dealt with and does not, therefore, appear in the present Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: Then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I end by saying that this Bill has in it the capacity to do a great deal of good by providing legal aid for poor people, but I also think that it can do a great deal of harm by subordinating the independence of lawyers to the convenience of politicians. If that danger ever comes to Scotland I hope our lawyers will remember their independence and their great and old traditions and will not sell them for a mess of pottage.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member is a Member of a party which was in power for many years and I should like to ask if he can give any instance of what he is saying about not working in harmony with England. He has spoken a great deal on that point and I should like to know what he has to say.

Mr. Galbraith: It is not a question of working in harmony with England, but what I object to, and what my hon. Friends on this side of the House object to, is that when something like the Scottish Housing Bill was brought in, exactly the same figures were applied to Scotland as were applied to England although the figures in each were quite different.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Ross: It is really rather amazing to try to follow the arguments of the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite shout about an injustice done to Scotland


because we are not treated as people in England are treated; yet, on the very next day, we hear from them that we are being trailed at the heels of England because we are given equal benefit. Then their speeches always end by accepting, as they are accepting this Bill, as something which is a reasonably good Measure. They belie all they have said before, and all the statements about the nationalisation of lawyers and the sweeping away of individual rights that have been expressed during the Third Reading speeches make me ask why they should not oppose the Third Reading. We are here sweeping away no individual rights, as the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) suggested. What we are surely doing is to make available a useful service.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I do not think that I said we were sweeping away individual rights in this Bill; what I said was that I have often seen rights swept away by Statutory Rules and Orders.

Mr. Ross: I thought that I had made myself clear; it has for a long time been the right of the people of Scotland to obtain some aid in this direction, but there has not been the right to enable people to take advantage of that provision because of the financial difficulties. This applies not only to poor people, but also to people of small and moderate means. This Bill, carrying that right, should be welcomed by everyone. As for the suggestion that we are applying de novo, we are creating a very much wider and bigger scheme of legal aid, and I doubt very much if we could have built it up entirely on the old basis. We recognise the advantages of the old scheme, and we pay tribute to those who made it work; but this new scheme is of advantage, not only to the poor, but to a wider section of the Scottish populace.
In Clause 4, we are bringing in the National Assistance Board to administer a certain part of the scheme, and I must say I feel no great enthusiasm for that. But I think that if the Lord Advocate will follow out the suggestion that he made, but which he unfortunately did not confirm tonight, of seconding officers from the National Assistance Board to this work, he will go far to dispel the

fears that have been expressed about discouraging people from entering into and taking advantage of the legal aid.
The only other point I want to make is that in the Central Committee I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will suggest the advisability, when drawing up their schemes regarding the local committees, of having lay members. Because it is, as I say, a very much wider and more extensive scheme, lay people are interested and would prefer to have a certain amount of representation there to give, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) said, the point of view of the would-be litigant. As far as the lawyers' attitude is concerned, I think it has really been absolutely disgraceful from the start. The smoke-screen of controversy and allegations and accusations has been raised right from the start, and then for the Bill to be passed without a Division surely shows that these fears and allegations have been quite unfounded. I am rather inclined to agree with Robbie Burns when it comes to the question of lawyers when he said:
I will have nothing to do with them professionally. The faculty is beyond my prescription.
But, quite apart from my own personal feelings about it, there will be people who will have to take advantage of the scheme and I sincerely hope the lawyers will forget quickly their controversy and make the scheme, which is going to be their scheme, work for the advantage of the people of Scotland.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: I want, in view of the many discussions we had on this Bill, to make known even at this hour that I welcome the Third Reading and the passing into law of this Measure. I think we should make perfectly clear the meaning of the Bill because there seems to be some doubt still in the minds of Members of the Opposition. It states quite clearly:
The Bill will make legal aid and advice in Scotland more readily available for persons of small or moderate means.
No one can dispute the fact that there was a great need for a measure of this kind. Previous experience on legal assistance was far from satisfactory. Indeed, no one with any knowledge of the worries of ordinary poor people seeking legal advice and legal aid, disputes that. Therefore I say that this


House must welcome a Measure of this kind.
There are two schools of thought associated with this Bill. One is the legal profession and the other is public opinion, the public representatives. There can be no doubt about the power behind the legal fraternity. First of all, and I think rightly, the Cameron Committee was appointed to examine the first report in regard to legal aid for the poor. In other words, they examined the Rushcliffe Report. That was the first opportunity the profession had to give its views on such legal aid. Further, all kinds of meetings were held between the Lord Advocate and the people associated with the profession. No one has any right to quarrel about that. That is the proper and businesslike way to handle a situation of this kind. It was followed by all sorts of, if I may use the phrase, pressure groups, and in addition to the pressure groups we had pamphlets issued and statements made at dinners and other kinds of gatherings by the legal profession. It is not surprising that in every profession or craft when any change——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be dealing with many matters which preceded the question we are discussing. We are discussing what is in the Bill and what will follow when it is passed.

Mr. Carmichael: If I may come back to what I was going to say, this Bill has had a considerable contribution from the bodies I have mentioned. They have been well represented, and there has been in the preparing of this Bill objections raised not only from the Opposition but from hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches, and these would have been well left out. I hope that this will not be unduly stressed. The only way we can watch the interests of the people who will benefit by this Bill is by the procedure of this House of Commons, and the Lord Advocate said in the early stages with great accuracy that this was a Measure brought in to assist poor people who cannot find legal aid themselves. If I had any objections, as I had to certain parts, these have now been passed.
I was worried by subsection (6) of Clause 4, but this has now been accepted. It did not please me and I was sorry that the Secretary of State should have had havoc played with his intellect by

his blood pressure so that he did not reason on this particular part of the Bill. If he had done so he would have seen that all I was trying to do was to improve the Bill as I was anxious to do. Shortly the Bill will become an Act and will be largely the property of the legal profession in Scotland. I have every faith in their association with the ordinary people and I have sufficient in the Government that as they feel it necessary in future to bring forward amending orders and legislation they will have the courage to do so. In that spirit I welcome the Bill and give it my support on Third Reading.

11.38 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentlemen the Members for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) have devoted most of their speeches to the legal profession in Scotland and the attitude it adopted towards this Measure. I do not object to the steps they have taken. I believe with the hon. Member for Bridgeton that it has helped us in our consideration of the Bill. I believe any statement made by the legal profession, however misguided it may have been, was done with the primary intention of endeavouring to protect the litigant. It is my honest conviction that a profession which has acted so nobly in the way in which it has looked after the interests of the poor for 400 years was not going to act in any way derogatory to the best interests of the ordinary litigant.
I join with the hon. Member for North Edinburgh in believing that we shall get the best of services from the legal profession once the Bill becomes law. We have done our best in all quarters of this House to make this a better Bill, and there is no one who can say it is not a much better Measure now than when it was originally introduced. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to assist us but we are sorry they could not go the whole way. If they had I am sure this would have been a better Bill still. Be that as it may, we hope our misgivings and the misgivings of the legal profession will prove unfounded and that this Bill will introduce an ever better system than we have had in the past.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I had not intended to say a word on the Bill, but having


regard to the observations from hon. Members opposite, I feel constrained to say that it is a sad thing to see them damn this excellent Bill with faint praise. The real value of this Bill has tended to be obscured by what some of them have said. One of them said that justice should not depend upon wealth; neither should it be a matter of grace. The fact that this Bill gives as a matter of legal right to an intending litigant what was a matter of grace in the past is the real feature of the Bill—and that fact has tended to be obscured tonight. Hon. Members opposite have called in aid the excellent services given by the lawyers of Scotland in the past as a matter of grace, but they have used that for the purpose of obscuring the real purpose of the Bill, which is to give, as a matter of legal right, what was merely a matter of grace in the past. This is an excellent Bill, doing good service, and I wish to add my voice to those who have welcomed it.

11.42 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: We should not like to part with this Bill on its voyage to another place without expressing appreciation of the various people who have contributed towards making it a better Bill than when it was first introduced. I think that is the fate of most Bills. I should therefore like to say a word of appreciation to the hon. Members in the House and the people outside the House who have worked towards that end. I think that we on this side of the House have tried to give effect to the various wishes and desires of a reasonable nature which were put to us. We have tried to explain these in a reasonable and understandable way, and if I have certain doubts as to whether we have been properly understood, those doubts were rather reinforced by some of the speeches from the other side of the House tonight.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking members of the legal profession who had the courtesy to take up my offer on the Second Reading of consulting me on every conceivable occasion. Many of the Amendments were made to the Bill as a result of the meetings. I thank the representatives both of the Faculty of Advocates and of the solicitors in Scotland. The representatives of the solicitors whom I met represented all the

leading societies in Scotland and must be accepted by this House as representing that branch of the profession in Scotland.
It has been suggested that we have done wrong in this Bill in setting up a fresh system. It is said that we should have built on existing conditions. In accepting the position that we had to start afresh we were bowing to the inevitable, because the existing system was such that it could not be extended to comprehend the large scope of persons whom we wished to incorporate within the provisions of this Bill. I have made that challenge outside and inside this House, and I have never yet heard an answer to it.
The rich people can afford to get legal aid on their own initiative, but the in-betweens, as I have called them, are afraid to risk the little money that they had saved in pursuance of their legal rights in court. They are the people who will greatly benefit under this Bill. That ought to be appreciated.
Quite a lot of unfounded statements have been made tonight. Unfortunately, some hon. Members opposite were paying more attention to the form of their phrases than to the substance. As long as they got something which sounded well they were happy, although their statements were quite divorced from the realities of the situation. It was said that we followed blindly on the heels of England and disregarded Scottish customs. That is not so. Starting off with the same general principle of the right to make legal aid more readily available to people of small and moderate means, together with a similar policy that the same range of persons ought to be able to benefit, we have then adopted our own peculiar Scottish system.
The hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. Galbraith) said that because the costs in England were higher than those in Scotland, we displayed our hand in accepting the same figure of £420 per annum as the maximum figure of net income under the Bill to qualify for legal aid. That shows a complete lack of comprehension of the principles in this Bill because the question of the qualification of £420 is made irrespective of the cost of litigation. Whether the litigation is £200 or £2,000, the contribution itself is exactly the same. Accordingly the question of the comparative costs between the two countries is no criterion.


We are saying the people below a certain income limit in both countries will contribute an equal amount towards the expenses if the cases are similar, and that irrespective of the total amount of the expenses involved, the same thing will apply under this Bill in Scotland. Exactly the same contribution would be payable, whether the case went to the sheriff court and stayed there, or whether it left there and pursued its way right to the House of Lords.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is pushing that point a little too far. It would be true, of course, if in every case the contribution was the maximum, but in many cases of assisted litigation the contribution from the assisted litigant will be well below the maximum of the case that he is making, so that the total contributions will be far less, in proportion, in Scotland than they are in England. That must remain true.

The Lord Advocate: That is not the case. One cannot take comparable cases because of the difference in our procedure. The actual costs bear no relation to this problem. The problem is what the applicant for legal aid will be called upon to pay. If he is called upon to pay beyond his limit he gets legal aid in both countries. That effectively disposes of quite a number of the arguments that we are following England. We have built around our own structure, having regard to the general principles.
Some surprising statements were made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison)—that he was afraid that solicitors were going to turn into a species of State servant, that the Executive was going to trespass into the realm of jurisprudence, and that the ancient rights of the individual were going to be destroyed. The ancient rights of the individual did not extend very far with regard to the obtaining of legal aid in the past because, apart from the old system, the individual did not have the rights that he now has under this Bill. It is perfectly true that when the Bill was introduced, the phrasing of Clause 11 as it then was, now Clause 12, certainly did leave it theoretically open for the Secretary of State or any of his successors to make regulations which would trespass on the relationship of the profession with their clients and the court with the parties appearing before it.
As a result of the Amendments to the Bill that doubt has been resolved because we have incorporated three different sorts of rule-making authorities. The first is the Secretary of State and embraces those regulations which refer to the limit of the scheme, which is a purely political matter and should not be taken out of the hands of Parliament. Secondly, the administration of the scheme is left entirely in the hands of the Law Society of Scotland in conjunction with the Faculty of Advocates. Thirdly, the court machinery and ancillary matters affecting the actual court machinery associated with legal aid has been left to the court. Each branch has been compartmented. How, in the light of that, it can be said that there is a danger of the solicitor becoming a species of State servant I fail to see.

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: I gave an illustration, from a very eminent source, on the same lines.

The Lord Advocate: With due respect, I did not think that was an illustration. I do not know whether or not the learned judge was referring to the Legal Aid Bill in that speech. If he was—and I am not accepting that he was—I would disagree entirely with what he says and leave it to the House to judge whether the provisions of the Bill create those dangers or whether they are quite unfounded. In the circumstances I feel that no good purpose is being served, and it does not make for the promotion of the good will necessary to carry out this scheme, if bogy men are erected, and if among a minority of the legal profession who have never been prepared to face the realities of this Measure and who have never been prepared to meet me and state the objections which they have stated elsewhere, views of that nature are propagated.
By this Measure we can do a great deal of good in Scotland, but success will depend on the manner in which the legal profession carry out their functions under this Bill. I believe that the legal profession will give their fullest service toward that end, and I wish them the best of luck in the venture on which they have set out. We are beginning a new era and are going to bring justice truly within the compass of the people—and not just theoretically, as in the past. On that note I should like to part with this section of the Bill.
We should not leave the Bill without a reference to the second part, and to the setting up of a single, unified Law Society—a provision which, I think, will be of the greatest use in the domestic affairs of the legal profession—and the setting up of a guarantee fund to recompense those who are disadvantaged through the act of a solicitor and are unable to recover their money in a court of law because of the financial situation of the solicitor. I think that, rather than detracting from the profession, it will add to its prestige that it is prepared to undertake this liability and to secure that no person need go disadvantaged because of some act on the part of a wayward member of the profession.
This Bill is a landmark in our legal history, and I wish that the tenor of the speeches had been rather more like that of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), in wishing it God speed on its way, in the hope that it will prove of that benefit to the people of Scotland which we so earnestly desire.

Orders of the Day — PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCILS MEASURE

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Burden (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
That the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure has been circulated with the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the appendix to which contains a full statement of the object of the Measure and the effect of the two principal clauses. I think, therefore, that at this hour I need not detain the House with a detailed explanation of the Measure. Briefly, it is needed to enable parochial church councils, particularly in the urban and industrial parishes, to play their part in the social welfare of the people in their parishes. There are a number of instances in which land or buildings held by a parochial church council form the only site on which a youth or community centre can be established, but the narrowness

of the term "ecclesiastical purposes" has prevented this being carried out by making it impossible for that work to rank for grant from the Ministry of Education. This Measure is intended to meet this difficulty.
Although the extended powers apply equally to parochial church councils in rural areas, it is not expected there will be any great use of them, and it is certainly not intended that they should in any way be used in competition with the secular parish councils. The requirement that the consent of the diocesan education committee should be obtained should help to ensure that there is no duplication of effort in the rural areas. In fact, the wider power should make for a much greater degree of co-operation between the parochial church councils and the parish councils than has hitherto been obtained.
The proposed extension of the parochial church councils' powers has the full approval of the Church Assembly, as is evidenced by the fact that the Measure passed through all its stages without a Division. It has been seen and approved on behalf of the Ministry of Education. The Measure has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which reports that it does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects and is of opinion that it is expedient that it should proceed.

Commander Agnew: I beg to second the Motion.

12 m.

Mr. Sorensen: I rise to support this Measure. I think a word may be said by one who is not a member of the Church of England and who therefore represents, paradoxically, an outsider judging that august body. I have the greatest appreciation of that communion. I only wish I could be accepted into their membership. One of these days, when the changes have taken place that will enable people of a theological mind like mine to be accepted, then I and others will be able to become members. Meanwhile, we are in the curious position of being called upon to judge on the needs of a Church which, however much we may respect her, has to come to this secular institution.
In passing, it is interesting to notice how the term "ecclesiastical" has been considerably widened in recent years.


There was a time when "ecclesiastical" did not mean what it is now going to mean when this small Measure has been adopted. It includes not merely the specifically spiritual welfare of members of the Church of England, and indeed, of the citizens of this country, but also includes within its orbit their physical wellbeing. In my estimation, this will be of real help in breaking down the false division between things physical and things spiritual.
I welcome this Measure because it means that the Church of England will do all that it can to extend its service, particularly to the youth, though it may not be along specifically doctrinal or theological lines. I think it also contains a certain financial advantage. At the present time the Free Churches and the Catholic Church can put up buildings for recreational and other purposes and secure grants from the Exchequer, and that enables these communions to do their work well. It is certainly an anomaly and a disadvantage to the Church of England that, because of its State connection, it should be put in the position that has obtained up till now.
Therefore, this Bill is a measure of equity. It extends to the Church of England what the Free and Catholic Churches already enjoy. It will be of financial advantage to the church in a direct way, because I suppose a large number of clergy will be able to be classified as youth leaders or officials responsible for recreational facilities and grants out of the national Exchequer will in many cases go to meet their great needs and in some measure ease them of financial burdens. I am very glad indeed that it is made clear that this Measure will enable premises to be used for purposes that include the political. I have been sorry sometimes in the past that church buildings have been denied to political parties. Now I presume—if I am wrong my hon. Friend will correct me—that not only will church halls be used for recreational purposes in the ordinary sense of the term, but that they can and should be used for political purposes as well. For that reason, I believe this is a liberal Measure, enabling the Church of England to perform its great service to our country better than in the past. I hope that the House will give it unanimous support.

12.4 a.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I, too, should like to welcome this Measure because I believe it will help many parochial church councils to carry on their work in a better way than they have been able to do up to now. I should like to consider what the Mover of the Measure said regarding where it would be most likely to help. I hope this Measure will be freely used in rural areas as well as in urban areas. There certainly seems to me to be a substantial case, without in any way overriding the secular parish councils, for encouraging parochial church councils to take far more interest in the day to day life of our villages than they have been able to do in the past. I hope they will be able to work in co-operation with such bodies as the Youth Hostels Association and that there will be a pooling of resources. I hope the church will play the part in the life of rural areas that it obviously intends to do in urban areas.
Before leaving the Measure, I should like to point to what might lead to a little confusion. I hope it will not. In Clause I we understand that the schemes which will be drawn up under this Measure must be for the spiritual, moral and physical training of persons residing in or near the parish. Reading that as though it were an ordinary Bill, although I know that we should never look at these Measures as though they were ordinary Bills, one would presume that any scheme must serve those three purposes, namely, spiritual, moral and physical training.
It seems to me that that particular wording may lead the parochial church councils into a certain amount of difficulty if their right to take over certain property is ever challenged by a secular body. I hope that matter has been considered by the legal advisers to the Church Assembly, and I have no doubt that if it has been considered by them, they are quite satisfied. It would be a tragedy if this Measure were proved, in certain cases, to be unworkable because of faulty drafting. I hope we can have an assurance upon this point.

Mr. Burden: As one of the Church Commissioners, I should like briefly to reply to the point which the hon. Member has raised. I am grateful to him for raising the point regarding the phrase, "spiritual, moral and physical


training." I can assure him that that phrase will be carefully looked at by the legal advisers to the Church Assembly. I hesitate to express what might be taken as a legal opinion, but it seems to me that if the word "or" were inserted, that would make it an exclusive phrase and would mean that spiritual, moral and physical training could not go forward at one and the same time. It is a difficulty of words, and I am sure that the point will be looked at.
As regards the secular parish councils, all I wanted to emphasise was that we are anxious for the fullest measure of co-operation between the parish councils and the parochial church councils. Everyone knows that one of the most gratifying features of rural life is the development of the work of the parish councils, and particularly of the National Association of Parish Councils. The words were put in specifically to help forward the work of the parish councils and of the national association.

Resolved:
That the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH DIGNITARIES (RETIREMENT) MEASURE

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move:
That the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure is a companion to the Incumbents (Disability) Measure, 1945, and the Incumbents (Disability) Measure, 1947, which provide machinery for compulsory retirement in the case of incapacity or misconduct of the parochial clergy of the Church of England. At the time these Measures were before the Church Assembly, a promise was given that legislation would be introduced to enable cathedral clergy and archdeacons to be dealt with on similar lines to those applicable to the parochial incumbents. This Measure is the result of that promise. It combines in one Measure the provisions which, for convenience, were dealt

with in two Measures in the case of the parochial clergy. There are certain differences, which are set out in the appendix to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. That was circulated with the Measure, so I will not occupy the time of the House by enumerating the differences in detail.
I shall, however, draw attention to two points. In the case of incumbents of benefices, charges of incapacity or misconduct must be referred to a committee of six clergymen elected for the purpose before they can be proceeded with. It is only with the approval of that committee that the charges can be brought to trial. In the present Measure, since it is cathedral clergy and archdeacons who may have to be dealt with, the cathedral chapter has been substituted for the ministerial committee of the Incumbents Measure. The second point is that under Clause 4 (1, b), provision is made that no proceedings may be started if the allegations relate to any question of doctrine, ritual, or ceremonial, or the social or political opinions of the dignitary. It will be noticed that the words "or activities" have been inserted, and hon. Members will recall that some controversy arose in the House on the Incumbents Discipline Measure over the meaning of these words. I think that it is now made clear, and I hope that the House will be prepared to assent to the Motion. The Ecclesiastical Committee has reported in favour of the Measure.

Commander Agnew: I beg to second the Motion.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I hope I shall be able, by my remarks, to console my hon. Friend who has lost his train; and I have offered to drive him to the ecclesiastical district of Hornchurch so that he may get home, which means that I shall be very late. I find myself faced with a paradox, because although I, personally, believe that the Church of England would be much healthier if it were disestablished, I feel also that if it had been disestablished, the particular provision to which my hon. Friend has referred, might not have been in this measure; namely, that no proceedings shall be instituted in so far as allegations refer to questions of ritual, or doctrine, or the social or political opinions of the dignitary.
If the present Church of England were independent of the State then, as the majority of its adherents appear to be Conservative, they might insist that this should be not included. But I am glad, because one day the political opinion of most Church of England members may be Socialist, or even Communist; although I hope not the latter because some of the hon. Members on the other side of the House would then become quite alarmed. We are presented with a paradox, but it is all the more reason why we should hope for the time when the Church of England will be able to decide for itself, and not have to ask for the opinion of agnostics, Jews, and heretics inhabiting this House. Further, I hope that the rules in this Measure may apply to higher dignitaries in any other similar Measure which may come before the House.

Resolved:
That the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — BELGIAN NATIONAL (CUSTOMS SEARCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Molson: About the beginning of this month I received a letter from a friend referring to the treatment accorded to his Belgian agent, Mr. Vanderzypen, when he came over here from Belgium to attend the British Industries Fair. The information which I received was that he arrived on 2nd May by the Ostend boat at Dover. At the Customs, Mr. Vanderzypen was separated, as is the ordinary routine on such occasions, from his British-born manager, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Vanderzypen went through amongst the foreigners and Mr. Parker amongst the British-born persons. Mr. Vanderzypen does not speak English and when he was asked how much English money he had on himself, he was trying to explain that he had £8, but that that was intended both for himself and for Mr. Parker. He was, I am told, then put into a room and asked to undress and was bodily searched. The search did not produce

any further money or valuables and he was allowed to leave the room without any apologies being tendered.
I put a Question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 17th May. I put it in the first place, hoping that perhaps the facts might not be exactly as they had been stated to me, and secondly that there might be an explanation as to why this innocent Belgian businessman, coming to this country for the purpose of buying goods at the British Industries Fair, had been subjected to this indignity at Dover. The answer that the Financial Secretary gave me at Column 258 of the OFFICIAL REPORT was merely to say that the Customs officers were entitled to carry out a search of this kind—a fact with which I was already quite familiar—and his answer confirmed that in fact no dutiable goods were being smuggled through, nor was any offence in connection with currency being committed. He then added that the inconvenience caused to him was much regretted and that Mr. Vanderzypen was so informed at the time.
Whether an apology was offered or not is apparently the only point upon which there is any conflict of evidence between what the Financial Secretary said and the information which I had received. Everybody realises that the task of a Customs officer is a difficult one. He is required to be diligent to detect smuggling and he would certainly be blamed if large quantities of goods were successfully smuggled through, and similarly if there were breaches of the regulations relating to currency. Thus, as Shakespeare said:
There's no art
To find the mind's construction in the face 
And it is no easier in the case of smuggling than it is in the case of other offenders against the law.
But equally when the Customs officers are given these very wide powers, it is quite reasonable to ask that they shall exercise these powers with judgment and discretion. If it is the case that they are subjecting innocent travellers to the indignity and discomfort and humiliation of physical search, and then it is found that the person subjected to that has not, in fact, been doing anything wrong, it is only natural there should be protests. The fact that a Customs officer was acting within


his legal right was no solution and certainly it is no comfort to those of us who are anxious that the tourist trade of this country should be encouraged, especially those who were coming to the British Industries Fair with the intention of buying British goods. Had the Financial Secretary been able to say that there were any reasonable grounds upon which this search had been carried out, then I should have had nothing more to say. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had inquired the grounds of suspicion upon which the Customs officer acted, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that obviously he could not answer that question there.
I then put it quite plainly that I was not asking him to divulge any confidential information which the Customs authorities might have, but I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself that there was any sufficient reason to justify the action taken by the Customs officers. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, that our custom in this House, if we are given an assurance by a Minister of the Crown that he has looked into the particulars of a case and is satisfied that the official has acted properly, is that in most cases the matter would be dropped, and not pressed any further by the Member raising the point. But what in fact he said was:
Customs officials have the right to search anyone on suspicion, and that is a right which they exercise with great circumspection. We mast leave it at that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 258.]
I thought that was not a very forthcoming answer for the right hon. Gentleman to give. I thought it probably meant that in fact he was not at all satisfied that in this case the Customs officer had had any reasonable ground upon which to carry out this search, and that he was anxious to protect him without in fact seeking to justify him, and it was for that reason I gave notice I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, which will, of course, give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining why the Customs officer did act in the way he did.
As a result of the publicity given to my Question, a further point was raised of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice. That is in cases where smuggling takes place through the use of a vehicle of any kind, it is now the habit

of the Customs authorities to avail themselves of an old statute, and to confiscate the vehicle whether or not the owner or driver of that vehicle knew that it was being used for the purpose of smuggling. That seems, again, to be a point where the administrative action of his Department can be reasonably criticised, and I should be glad to know what is the opinion of the Department on that subject, and whether the right hon. Gentleman seeks to justify the confiscation of vehicles which were not the property of the person convicted of the smuggling?

12.24 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I should like to take the second case first. The car was taken from Mr. Farquarson after he had been convicted by a magistrate for having liquor in his possession, and removing it without the necessary permit. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Customs and Excise acted under Section 105 (8) of the Spirits Act, 1880, where it is laid down quite clearly that all spirits found to have been sent, delivered, or removed, or in the course of being sent, delivered, or removed, in contravention of this Section, and if horses, carriages, or boats are used in conveying the spirits, they shall be forfeited. That being so the Customs officers did no more than comply with the law. The magistrate fined Mr. Farquarson who had pleaded guilty. It was obvious that it was plain to the magistrate, as well as to the solicitor who defended Mr. Farquarson, what the law was.
I would add that this gentleman, although told that the car was about to be forfeited, drove off in it and it took the Customs three months at least to find him and take hold of the car as they were in duty bound to do. I honestly cannot see why that case is raised at all. It is a perfectly straightforward case where this gentleman had put himself within the section of the Spirits Act, 1880, and the Customs people have to see that the law is obeyed. I should have thought myself that hon. Members would have been only too pleased to see that the Customs people were doing their duty.
I come to the first case which the hon. Member raised—namely, the case of Mr. Vanderzypen. It is true that this gentleman came here, I think to attend the British Industries Fair. The Waterguard


are not to know what is the purpose of the visits of people who come to our shores—and it is their job to prevent contraband of all kinds being smuggled in and, of course, being smuggled out. But on this occasion Mr. Vanderzypen was entering the country, and the officials at the port of entry came to the conclusion that it was their duty in this case—as indeed in the case of another man on the same occasion—to make an additional search.
It is not true that he was made to undress. He was taken into a room and was asked to turn out his pockets, which he did, and that was the sum total of the extra searching to which he was subjected. He was, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member, apologised to for the inconvenience caused him. It may well be that if he did not understand English he was not aware of what was being said, but my information is—and I am prepared to rely on it from what I know of the Waterguard—that the search, such as it was, was carried out with great circumspection and in a proper manner which certainly complied with the law, and that he was not asked to undress and that he was apologised to.
The hon. Member says he has raised this matter tonight simply and solely because I did not indicate, in reply to the supplementary question he asked me, whether or not I satisfied myself that the Customs officials on the spot had carried out their duties in a proper way. I honestly do not know in what way I can "satisfy" myself. I could not possibly be there to see this man come ashore and be questioned by the officials on the spot, and therefore I satisfied myself by approaching the Customs and Excise office here in London, who in turn got into touch with those concerned at the port. The information thus supplied to me convinced me, from what I know of the work of these officers, that the story they told me was the true one. It was quite obvious and I cannot go beyond that.
I said in reply to the supplementary question put to me by the hon. Member that the Customs officers have the right to search anyone on suspicion. Therefore, having that right, they can obviously search any individual passenger who comes in. No one denies that the man had been searched. No one denies that the officials had the right to search. That

being so the only point at issue was whether the search had been carried out in a courteous manner. But that was not the supplementary question. The supplementary question asked of me was whether I had satisfied myself that there was any sufficient reason to justify the action taken by the Customs officials? Quite obviously they would not search an individual unless they, as officials on the spot, had sufficient reason to think it necessary to search him beyond just questioning him, which is the usual procedure carried through with ordinary passengers. It is true that in this case nothing contraband was found upon him.
It is quite obvious that when Customs officials do their job they cannot be 100 per cent. certain, but I am here to tell the hon. Member, what he probably already knows, that in 80 per cent. of the cases where search is carried out, grounds are found for the search and contraband is found on the person searched. The figure of 80 per cent. is a pretty high one when we realise the ease with which it is possible to smuggle gems, coins, rings and jewellery of all kinds through the Customs. As a matter of fact, on the very day after the hon. Gentleman put his Question to me, at the same port of entry, two Belgian women were caught with over 800 watches on their persons. People do, at this time—I suppose they think it is worth it—attempt to evade the Customs.
Customs officials have a very difficult job to do. They do it, in my view, and in the view of most people who have watched them at work, in a very courteous way, and it is very rarely that we get complaints. It is quite obvious that they must have this right of search. They cannot always be certain that their suspicions are justified, but occasionally they have to prove whether they are right or wrong. In the case of Mr. Vanderzypen it was obvious that they were wrong and they apologised, but in the great majority of cases so experienced are they, that they find their suspicions are well founded, and as I have already said, in over 80 per cent. of the cases it has been found that the more thorough search which they have carried out has been justified by the events.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to One o'Clock.